Mr.
Clappison: The Minister is doing a good job of giving an
explanation of this. I invite his attention and, perhaps appropriately,
his reflection, because it raises legal issues, on another aspect of
this. That is the possible liability of the external provider to a
claimant where the external provider may have been negligent in
discharging his duties to the claimant. Would this serve to exclude the
Secretary of State from liability for the same negligence where the
external provider had been negligent to the claimant? While the
claimant may have an action against the external provider, issues could
arise if the external provider, through any circumstances, came to be
in a position to be unable to meet any claim that was brought against
him by the claimant. In those circumstances, would the claimant have a
right of action against the Secretary of State, or does this serve to
exclude
it?
Mr.
McNulty: Just to add to the confusion, I am told by this
magical process that enlightens Ministers every now and then that the
claimant, even in those circumstances, would sue the Secretary of
State, who, because of the interplay between subsections (7) and (8),
could then go on to sue the
provider. I
am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has afforded me time to reflect on
these matters, but I think that the original position that I presented
of subsections (7) and (8) and their interplay being a clumsy way of
making sure that the Secretary of State is still afforded appropriate
contractual rights under contract law for those bits that have been
contracted out. I believe that the circularity still endures—I
will get back to the Committee if that is not the case—the
duties lie with the Secretary of State. The circumstances described by
the hon. Gentleman would mean, I think, that the individual would sue
the Secretary of State and if there was any scope to, not least because
of the existence of the part we are referring to, that would afford the
Secretary of State the ability to sue the
provider.
Mr.
Harper: The Minister has said several times that this is a
clumsy way of achieving this particular outcome. Is there a particular
reason why it has been done like this, or is there some elegant way of
achieving this that has somehow escaped
him?
Mr.
McNulty: In my limited experience of this place, I have
rarely found that English law will go for an elegant route when a
clumsy route could take precedence.
Mr.
Clappison: I am grateful to the Minister for his words. I
was not trying to engage in any guessing game. My purpose was to raise
a reasonable question for further reflection. The Minister has
approached the matter in a reasonable way. I invite him to go away and
reflect on it further. I am particularly thinking of the position of
the claimant and the rights that they may have when they have suffered
from negligence. On the basis that the Minister has said that he will
reflect on this, I beg leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
2 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
3Entitlement
to jobseeker’s allowance without seeking employment
etc Amendment
proposed: 62, in
clause 3, page 10, line 17, at
end insert— ‘(8) The
prescribed description of person under subsection (4)(c)
above shall include any person with dependent children who has claimed
benefit in the previous 12 months following an incident of domestic
violence provided that the claimant is able to produce such evidence as
may be required by the Secretary of State to establish that the
relationship was caused to permanently break down before the end of
that period as a result of domestic violence, as under United Kingdom
Immigration Rule 289A.’.—(Paul
Rowen.) The
Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes
9.
Division
No.
2] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 3
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
1 agreed
to. Clauses
4 to 6 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
7Abolition
of income
support
Paul
Rowen: I beg to move amendment 43, in
clause 7, page 13, line 12,
after ‘effect’ insert,
‘following the
presentation of a report concerning income support; and, such an order
may not be made unless a draft of a statutory instrument containing the
order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House
of Parliament.’.
Clause
7 deals with the abolition of income support and is part of the
Government’s long-term commitment to simplifying benefits. The
clause grants the Secretary of State the power to abolish income
support. In moving amendment 43, I am seeking to require him to present
both a statutory instrument and report regulations that can be fully
debated by both Houses before such a decision is taken. The question is
why I am making such a request. As hon. Members are aware, income
support as it currently stands is still available. It is a remaining
benefit for carers, lone parents and women in the later stages of
pregnancy. It is not subject to labour market conditions.
The
Government have previously confirmed that carers will be entitled to
continue to claim income support until there is a clear and detailed
plan for the long-term reform of the benefits available to carers. We
seek to probe the Government’s intentions for this clause, as we
should not grant a wide-ranging power to abolish income support without
first having in place a replacement allowance that has been properly
debated. Something that pervades the Bill far too much is the granting
of sweeping powers to the Secretary of State without any detailed
reference to conditionality and without any redress or support for
affected
groups.
5.15
pm The
amendment would mean that before income support was abolished—a
power that the clause grants to the Secretary of State—there
should be full discussion and agreement in both Houses of Parliament
about the replacement allowance. It would clearly be wrong for ESA, as
it is currently constituted, to be the replacement allowance. For
example, under ESA, when someone is required to attend a meeting, that
meeting cannot be deferred, but can be waived, and that is not a
statutory measure.
We need to
see the Government’s proposals in writing before income support
can be abolished. I hope, and believe, that we can all agree a way
forward that would provide carers with a better benefit and recognise
the tremendous work that they do. Under the Bill, however, there could
be a blanket abolition of income support before it had been replaced,
and we should afford people the protection of a requirement that
Parliament must approve any replacement before the Secretary of State
may exercise the power to abolish
it.
Mr.
McNulty: The hon. Gentleman is right, but for the wrong
reasons. He is wrong to suggest that the power is sweeping, as it is a
single power to abolish a particular benefit, but he is right to say
that there are issues to consider, including carers and the timing of
such abolition. That is why we have made it clear that we would not
introduce an order to abolish that benefit until there were no longer
any groups that required it. That seems terribly straightforward; one
would not abolish a benefit while people still required it. We have
made it very clear that in proposing to abolish income support, we do
not propose that people who get it should receive any less money or
should be subject to requirements such as that they must look for work.
The intention is to simplify and streamline the system without making
it any less sensitive to people’s needs, and clause 7 does that
appropriately. This measure, and other laws in regulation and statute,
will prevail as people move off income support and on to other
benefits.
For the same
reason, I do not agree that there is any value in requiring a separate
report, as the amendment suggests. By the time that such a report was
produced, it would be very clear what arrangements had been made for
each group of income support recipients, because we would not introduce
an order until we were in that position. Also, there will probably be
further consultation on at least some groups—certainly on
carers—as I mentioned earlier. Any report would therefore simply
be a formality saying that there were no longer any recipients of
income support and that we were going to abolish it. That would be a
complete waste of everyone’s time and would do no more than
confirm something that would be apparent from a cursory reading of the
relevant
order. The
hon. Gentleman can and should be assured that there is no secret agenda
to rush towards the abolition of income support without dealing with
those extant groups that still require it, and no order will be
forthcoming until we are at a stage when there are no recipients of a
benefit that we seek to
abolish.
Paul
Rowen: Is the Minister prepared to give an assurance that
the replacement for income support for carers will be debated through
consideration of regulations, and that if a new law has to be
introduced, there will be an opportunity for proper scrutiny? It is all
right saying that there will not be anyone claiming the benefit, but if
there will be no opportunity to discuss the replacement benefit, what I
am seeking through the amendment should be
accepted.
Mr.
McNulty: In the strictest sense, there will not be a
replacement benefit. What we are trying to do for carers in the way
that I described earlier is to look radically at the whole approach to
supporting them, including with regard to benefits, across the whole of
the Government including, crucially, on social
care. I
shall not give the hon. Gentleman an assurance about proper scrutiny
without his defining what “proper” means in that context.
At the very least, there will be plenty of scope for scrutiny through
the Social Security Advisory Commission, at the least through the
negative procedure, and potentially through the affirmative procedure.
I am sure that there will be other times and opportunities when we will
report in more detail for such scrutiny. As has been suggested, the
importance of the role of carers in this country is far too important
for the situation to be
otherwise.
Paul
Rowen: I am not totally happy with the Minister’s
commitment, but we will see what happens. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
2 agreed to.
Clause
8 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
9Claimants
dependent on drugs
etc. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Harper: I wish to speak about several issues relating to
this aspect of the Bill. At the beginning, it is worth saying that my
party supports the proposals in the Bill for a treatment allowance.
That came out clearly in the evidence sessions, but I say it again for
avoidance of doubt because the Minister for Employment and Welfare
Reform has recently stated the opposite by rather mischievously taking
a very short quotation from the former shadow Secretary of State and
missing out important words that completely changed the meaning of the
sentence. I
am making my remarks by way of ensuring that the proposals are properly
questioned. Also, I want them to be successful, but I have some doubts,
which are based on feedback about whether they will work from sensible
practitioners in this area from whom we did not hear during the
evidence
sessions. Claimants
who are dependent on drugs are a real problem. The Minister highlighted
a real issue, and I know from my own constituents, from people I have
spoken to throughout the country and from the clear reaction of members
on both sides of the Committee when we were listening to some of the
evidence that it is an issue for all Members. For some, it is a problem
in their
constituencies. The
first thing that is worth discussing is treatment capacity, which came
up a great deal during the evidence session. This is one of the areas
that I want Ministers to clarify. When the Minister for Employment and
Welfare Reform was asked about it, we were talking about the number of
problem drug users who were on benefits. The number that was floating
around was 240,000. A concern was expressed about whether the capacity
would be available if a significant number of those people were
captured by the proposals and referred to drug treatment services. I
think that I am accurately paraphrasing the Minister by saying that he
pointed out that, in the initial stages, the focus would be on only
heroin and crack users, because that was where the biggest problem was,
so the whole drug problem would not be tackled.
However, if
we consider the numbers concerned, there are approximately 330,000
problem drug users in England—they are the heroin or crack
addicts. Two thirds of them are on benefits, but only half of those on
benefits are accessing drug treatment. It seems that even if the
Department focuses on the heroin and crack addicts who the Minister
states are the priority, there are 267,000 problem drug users. Even if
a relatively small percentage of those were to be dealt with each year,
that would represent a significant increase in the number of users
accessing drug treatment. I am not convinced that there will be the
capacity to provide that treatment. There would be nothing worse than
using the powers in the Bill to persuade or cajole benefit claimants to
access treatment only to find that that treatment was not available.
That would not help anyone at all.
The Minister
rubbished it somewhat, but the evidence provided to the Committee by
DrugScope about a response that it received from the Department of
Health suggested that an increase in drug users referred through this
process could be dealt with only by accelerating them in the queue
ahead of those who had come to drug treatment voluntarily. The Minister
needs to clarify that because that would not be satisfactory. It would
not be helpful if those who had come forward for drug
treatment of their own volition were moved down the queue so that people
who were there because of a threat of sanction could be dealt with. The
Minister needs to tackle the question of how many problem drug users he
expects this process to deal with—the Department must have made
an estimate—and what impact that will have on the available
treatment services in England. In a moment, I will deal with some
examples from Wales, where there are specific issues about the length
of time that users have to wait to access treatment services. There was
some discussion at the evidence session about the extent to which the
Department is engaging with the Scottish and Welsh Assembly Governments
to ensure that such services are
available. Another
issue is the extent to which Jobcentre Plus advisers are the right
people to be involved in this process. That partly concerns their
skills and the training that they will have, but it also concerns the
nature of the organisations that are best placed to engage with problem
drug users.
I have
received feedback from Turning Point, which runs a programme in Wales
that helps some of these problem drug users to get back into work. The
information that they gave to the Government’s consultation was
that because Jobcentre Plus is a statutory body that handles the
day-to-day delivery of benefits, in the minds of claimants, the
disclosure of personal information such as the use of problem drugs to
a Jobcentre Plus adviser would be implicitly linked to whether or not
they got those benefits.
From the
experience of Turning Point, a non-statutory body would engage with
those users more successfully. For users who were parents, concerns
would be linked not only with getting their benefits, but with whether
a disclosure of problem drug use might lead to such a thing as their
children being removed by social services. It believed that the
likelihood of people making a disclosure to an independent adviser
would be much greater than that happening to a statutory body
responsible for benefit payments. Its experience from its progress2work
operations was that its workers were referring people who were not
previously known to treatment providers or known to be problem drug
users. When the Minister thinks about how this programme will be
implemented, it will be worth bearing in mind the extent to which
Jobcentre Plus advisers would be engaged in it, or whether a
significant proportion of this work could be more effective if it was
delivered by a third
party. 5.30
pm There
are also some concerns about data protection. The clause contains
proposals for information sharing between Jobcentre Plus and law
enforcement agencies. Although the Bill contains safeguards to protect
individuals from criminal liability as a result of the disclosures they
make, there are still concerns about how that information is secured
and transferred. The Minister will be aware, both from his previous
roles and in his current one, about the importance of data security. It
would be helpful if he covered some of those issues in his
response. The
other matter that we touched on briefly in the evidence-taking session
was exactly what the Minister means by “treatment”. I
think that he said during that session that he was clear that the
objective of treatment was to get someone off their drug habit, as
opposed to just managing it. I ask about that because there are two
issues involved. In the national treatment programme, a significant
number of people—about 50 per cent.—appear to be having
their drug addiction managed, as opposed to their getting off drugs.
That may be a success from a criminal justice perspective—if
they are on a programme where they are receiving a methadone
prescription, that may deal with their need to commit crimes to fund
that habit—but if they remain addicted to methadone, although
that is less problematic than taking heroin, it does not mean that they
are in a good, stable situation allowing them to get to get work or
remain in work. I should like some understanding of the objective of
the treatment that the claimant would be expected to undertake; is the
objective to get those people off their drug habit, albeit recognising
that that may take some time, or is it simply to manage that habit in
the long
term? I
have already mentioned the resources issues. We will see if the
Minister can outline some of those. I should particularly like to
understand what the Department thinks the likely outcome of this part
of the Bill will be, including estimates of how many people will be
referred to a provider in first few years and how well the programme
will
work. Specifically,
picking up the issue I mentioned in respect of Wales, I have data from
Cardiff, which is effective as of this month, showing that the next
person on the waiting list for a methadone prescription from the
community addiction unit in the Vale of Glamorgan, for example, has
been on the list since March 2008. That person has been waiting nearly
a year for drug treatment. More than 500 people are on the waiting list
in Cardiff. There is a fast-track system, but at the moment that is
only for pregnant women. Conversely, the drug intervention programme
has no waiting list, but all prospective clients must have been
involved in the criminal justice system. There is clearly a resource
issue there. Those involved in the criminal justice system can get
treatment immediately, as it right and proper, but those who are not
involved in the criminal justice system appear to be waiting for a
significant period. Clearly, even if the Minister is comfortable about
how this scheme will work in England, there are issues in the devolved
parts of the UK that Ministers need to take into account when rolling
it
out. I
have covered the issues that I wanted to raise. We are supportive of
the proposals. I am not challenging the nature of the proposals but I
want to ensure that the Minister has thought through the details and
the implementation and that they are as successful as we all wish them
to
be.
| 
