Mr.
Harper: The Minister is shaking his head, but in the third
sitting he said that
“there has been
discussion with both Scotland and Wales. We think that it is right to
pilot throughout the UK, rather than just in
England”. He
then went on to say that
“clearly we do
not want to pilot in a situation where there are substantial waiting
lists for treatment. We need to work with colleagues over the next
couple of years to get to a stage at which a pilot in a Welsh or
Scottish context will have some meaning and the provision of treatment
will be there.”——[Official Report,
Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2009; c. 87,
Q155.] It
sounds as though we will be running pilots over the next two years in
England. Given what I said about the waiting lists in Wales and what
the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and colleagues on both sides
have said about the position in Scotland, a significant period of time
will probably have to elapse before it is possible to run pilots in
Scotland and Wales. That may be sensible, but it would be helpful to
know if that is what the Department is currently
planning.
Ann
McKechin: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important
point. I was about to turn to the issue of the roll-out of this
programme in the devolved Administrations.
We are
working very closely with the devolved Administration in Wales. We
appreciate that they have issues of capacity, and as in England we do
not want to burden health services in a way that causes additional
stress. We are still hopeful that we will be in a position at some
stage—not initially, but at a later stage—to introduce
the programme in
Wales. We
also continue to have discussions with the Scottish Government
regarding their proposals. We were initially advised that they had
severe problems of capacity. They then raised objections regarding what
they say is unethical, but I will come to that later when I deal with
the
comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, East.
At the present time, it is clear that they do not have capacity. They
do not have an anti-drugs strategy. We do not have a time scale for
when they might reduce the waiting times and we do not know what
percentage of extra people would be needed to assist. Therefore, we
have a problem with that particular
point. John
Mason: Is it not the case that the Scottish Government
have indicated that they hope to have much improved times within two
years?
Ann
McKechin: That might well be the case. I understand that
the Scottish Government initially promised a 20 per cent.
increase in their manifesto. According to their justice budget, their
spending is only up 14 per cent. However, if we look at the number more
closely, the apparent increase is only 1.9 per cent average in real
terms over the next three years. They have also failed to set up the
drugs commission, which they promised. There is no target in their
strategy for increasing the number of people receiving drug misuse
treatment, they have dropped the previous Administration’s
target of increasing the numbers in treatment by 10 per cent. and there
is no target for waiting times. Unfortunately, the story there is not
very positive, but we continue to work with the Scottish Government. We
are surprised that they now want us to wait until the pilots have been
carried out in England because they are not slow to point out that
there are always differences with the devolved Administrations, which
is the very reason why we want the pilots—so that we can test
the provisions against the different provisions and services that are
available in Scotland. I hope that they will use the opportunity to
reconsider that because it would be very much in the interests of their
own
constituents. Let
me return to the comments made by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean.
He mentioned the issue of the jobcentre staff and the type of training
with which they would be engaged. The role of the personal adviser will
be to judge whether there are reasonable grounds for believing a person
is a problem drug user. We will be issuing guidance to staff on how to
assess whether there are such reasonable grounds. We are certainly not
expecting them to make any medical judgments; that must be left to
specialists and will be dealt with through our contacts with the NHS.
Staff will be provided with guidance on how to spot the possible signs
and behaviours linked with drug misuse and it will be drawn up in
conjunction with the NTA. The new Jobcentre Plus drugs co-ordinators
will also have a role in raising awareness among all staff about drug
misuse, including the difficulties faced by drug users in dealing with
the requirements of the benefit system. Sadly, Jobcentre Plus staff are
not unused to dealing with drug misusers, so they already have
knowledge of that particular client group, but we want to ensure that
they work closely with the Department of Health regarding
awareness.
6
pm The
hon. Gentleman mentioned data protection. Any provisions regarding the
sharing of information will be subject to the Human Rights Act 1998 and
data protection legislation. He also asked about treatment and what it
involves. Treatment will be medically determined by specialists and
will be part of the rehabilitation plan, but will not be the only part
of it, because we are
looking at giving advice on soft skills, debt,
housing and skills training, all of which might form part of the
rehabilitation package. We will not force people to take invasive
treatments, and their consent will be required for such treatments. If
methadone is prescribed as a potential treatment for their condition,
their consent will be required in relation to the standard conditions
of the NHS
charter. Mr.
Harper: When he gave evidence to the Committee, the
Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform made it clear that the
priority, in the pilots, were heroin and crack cocaine users, of whom
approximately 240,000 are on benefits. Does the Department have any
idea, from its research and evidence, of the kind of treatment required
to get someone to a position where their problem drug use is no longer
a barrier to work? The point that I am driving at is one that I alluded
to earlier: does the evidence suggest that, for most heroin or crack
cocaine users, the barrier to working will be substantially reduced
when they use a substitute such as methadone, or do they have to be
completely off drugs to work? That is not clear to me, and I wonder
whether the Department has a view on
that.
Ann
McKechin: We appreciate that coming out of drug use can
take a long time. Our aim with rehabilitation plans is to stabilise
people’s condition so that they are sufficiently able to engage
with labour market activity. That might mean that they are still on
methadone, or are coming off it gradually, because it can take some
time to come off. We will work closely with employers, through local
employment partnerships, to find job opportunities and give guaranteed
interviews and work placements to people who have gone through that
kind of rehabilitation plan, so that there will be an outcome for them
at the end of the day. People will not necessarily be totally off drugs
when they re-enter the standard JSA regime.
The hon.
Member for Rochdale was concerned about sharing information with the
police force and probation service. Those details are still being
discussed with our colleagues in the Home Office and Ministry of
Justice, but the regulations will provide for information sharing that
is proportionate to our aims. Many people who suffer from heroin and
cocaine use will have been through the criminal justice and prison
systems, and might already be in a rehabilitation programme as part of
their probation programme. It is important that we have relevant and
correct information from the criminal justice system to ensure that we
are co-ordinated and are aware of what is happening under both the DWP
and criminal justice systems.
Information
from the probation service will include details of individuals who are
subject to rehabilitation requirements as part of a community sentence.
Such people will already be receiving drug treatment, and we will want
to ensure that they are included in the programme. Information from the
police is likely to include details of people who have tested positive
for drug use when arrested, have been charged with offences or have
been referred for a required assessment. Information from prisons will
include details of people who have recently left prison. The
regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament
will have the opportunity to consider and approve regulations before
they are put in place.
Mr.
Harper: On prisons, may I make a helpful point? This issue
came up when I visited the progress2work operation run by Turning Point
in Cardiff. Rather than simply have information about people who have
recently left prison, it might help if the Department got that
information in advance. One thing that has come through very clearly to
me is that if there is no arrangement in place for someone’s
housing and work situation as they are leaving prison, but preferably
before they leave, and if they go back to where they used to live, they
end up associating with the same people and quickly getting back on to
drugs. That not only spoils their employment opportunities but, if they
have been off drugs in prison, it can lead to their dying or becoming
seriously ill. Notwithstanding concerns about information sharing, it
would be better to have information from prisons before or as soon as
those people leave. That would join them up with this type of programme
so that they do not fall through that
gap.
Ann
McKechin: The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point. It
is important that people coming out of prison—particularly after
a substantial period and if they have already been in a drugs
programme—do not start to take the drugs available on the
street, or they could be in risk of their lives. It is important that
we have a system that manages to catch people so that they do not fall
into holes. We need co-ordination between prison and probation
services, health services, and housing agencies in terms of debt
advice, because one or two issues in that package can mean the
difference between someone managing to cope and someone falling
through.
In terms of
drug treatment, the figures show that 83 per cent. of those in
treatment are recorded receiving effective treatment that has a
long-term positive impact. In addition, 93 per cent. of those assessed
as requiring drug treatment are able to access it within three weeks.
That is critical because the scientific evidence is clear that putting
people into treatment is the best possible way out of drug
misuse.
The hon.
Member for Rochdale involved himself in an argument that I found
difficult to follow about why, if we put a piece of legislation into a
health Bill, it would be different in essence—although the
terminology might be the same—from one that we put into a Bill
on welfare reform. He creates artificial barriers, which we are trying
to take down. When someone leaves prison or hospital after taking a
drug overdose, they do not necessarily distinguish between a health
Bill and a welfare reform Bill; they need help, and that is what the
Bill intends to provide. It is not about a punitive regime: it is about
a regime that takes people off JSA standard conditions and puts them on
to a treatment programme that is far more appropriate for the condition
in which they are in. I hope the hon. Gentleman would welcome
that.
The hon.
Member for Glasgow, East mentioned the question of working with the
Scottish Government. I have said that we are more than happy to work
constructively with them. I bring to his attention one scheme on which
we could agree. That was mentioned in yesterday’s
Herald and it suggests that the Scottish Government have
used the example that we are trying to use, but in the criminal justice
system; it is called the persistent offenders programme.
A study into
the first year of that programme found that serial offending by people
involved in shoplifting, housebreaking and prostitution was cut by
almost
30 per cent. in four of Glasgow’s police divisions. The programme
staff identify the most prolific offenders, door-knock them and give
them the choice of signing up for drugs and alcohol rehabilitation or
being targeted by officers. Sergeant Andy Brown of Strathclyde police
said: “We
then monitor how well people are doing. It is not a
get-out-of-jail-free card. It’s about getting people at the
right time—in that wee window when they’re ready to
accept
help.” One
of the applicants on the scheme
said: “Within
half an hour they had sorted me out with a methadone programme and I
got a worker who would come out to see me every
week.” I
think members of the Committee may be somewhat perplexed that if
someone has a continuous criminal record and is a drug misuser, that
person has an entitlement to instant treatment. However, if someone has
the misfortune of being a drug user but does not have a serial criminal
record in Scotland, that person might wait up to 52 weeks for treatment
care.
John
Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): When my hon. Friend
next talks with her counterparts north of the border, could they look
at the case she has mentioned and see if we can roll it out as another
trial in England? It sounds excellent, and in a city like Glasgow we
need all the help we can get.
Ann
McKechin: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that I am happy
to speak to the Scottish Government at any point about this particular
scheme. I very much welcome that pragmatic, sensible and caring
approach. That is exactly what we are trying to replicate in the
welfare reform system.
John
Mason: I also read the article as I came down on the train
yesterday. I think it highlights this balance between compulsion and
encouragement; would the hon. Lady agree? It does seem from the words
she read out that there was very much an element of choice and an
element of people wanting to go into these things. That is very much
the emphasis. I am a wee bit disappointed by her tone; it seems
combative with the Scottish Government. Would it be possible, while not
throwing away the principles that the UK Government hold, that there
might be a willingness to tweak things a bit in order to get on with
the Scottish Government?
Finally, does
the hon. Lady also agree that the point is made that people have been
taken off crime—I am sure we would all agree that this is a good
thing—but the danger of cutting benefits for such drug users is
that we end up pushing people back into
crime?
Ann
McKechin: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman’s
experience of police is in Glasgow, but when you get a knock at the
door saying you are going to be targeted or else you will enter the
rehabilitation programme, I would say that it is a strong stick, and
fairly stark. However, it is clearly one that has worked.
It is only
fair that there is another avenue of opportunity—not only when
people come out of prison or are facing another charge, but when they
present themselves at the Jobcentre Plus office and are clearly
having problems with drug misuse. Because it is a contract between
citizen and state—no one forces anyone to apply for the benefit,
but those who do apply have to take responsibilities—we try to
offer people individual support and a treatment plan that is
appropriate to their needs. Actually, scientific evidence shows that
this is the best possible way to get people off the drugs, out of a
life of crime and into a situation where they can properly support
their family and children. If a person’s life is so chaotic that
they cannot even sign on to a rehabilitation programme, it prompts the
question whether they are the appropriate person to look after
children. Incidentally, our experience also shows that people who have
a chaotic lifestyle are not able to cope with the standard JSA regime,
and very often can come off the rails. That is why we want to offer
them a better deal. | 
