| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
41: Schedule 3, page 74, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 on page 75 and insert-
"Requirement to attend an assessment for treatment6 (1) Regulations may make provision for or in connection with imposing on a person a requirement to attend an assessment for treatment.
(2) Regulations under this paragraph must include provision for the requirement mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) to be imposed on a person only if, as a result of an assessment carried out under regulations under paragraph 2, the Secretary of State is satisfied that-
(a) the person is dependent on, or has a propensity to misuse, any drug, and
22 Oct 2009 : Column 911
(b) the person's dependency or propensity is a factor affecting the person's prospects of obtaining or remaining in work.
(3) The requirements are that during the specified period (which may not exceed 52 weeks or, if the case is exceptional, 104 weeks) the person-
(a) must attend an assessment for treatment by or under the direction of a person having the necessary qualifications or experience,
(b) must take part in specified interviews, and specified assessments, at specified places and times, and
(c) must take such other steps (if any) as may be specified, with a view to the reduction or elimination of the person's dependency on, or propensity to misuse, the drug in question.
(4) Regulations under this paragraph may, in particular, make provision-
(a) for suspending any jobseeker's agreement to which a person is a party for any period during which the person has consented to a rehabilitation plan;
(b) for securing that a person who is required to comply with an assessment for treatment provides information, and such evidence as may be prescribed, as to compliance with the assessment.
(5) A jobseeker's allowance may also be known as a "treatment allowance" at any time when-
(a) it is payable in respect of a person who is consenting to a rehabilitation plan (or would be so payable if compliance with the plan is assumed), or
(b) it is payable in respect of a joint-claim couple both members of which are consenting to comply with a rehabilitation plan (or would be so payable if compliance with the plans is assumed).
(6) Regulations under this paragraph may not impose a requirement on a person at any time unless the person would (apart from the regulations) be required to meet the job seeking conditions at that time.
(7) Regulations under this paragraph must include provision for securing that a person is not required to submit to medical or surgical treatment without the person's consent."
Baroness Meacher: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 48. The purpose of the amendments is to replace paragraph 6 in new Schedule Al and delete paragraph 3 of new Schedule 1A. These paragraphs as they stand provide for compulsory treatment under a threat of benefits sanctions for claimants dependent on or with a propensity to misuse any drug.
I pay tribute to the Minister and to the Bill team for the work that they have done to make possible the tabling of government Amendment 42 .That amendment provides that regulations must ensure that no claimant covered by Schedule 3 is required to submit to medical or surgical treatment without the person's consent. The Government have thus agreed to the principle that no claimant, including those dependent on or with a propensity to misuse of any drug, should be subjected to compulsory treatment under the welfare reform legislation. Clinicians and patients up and down the country can breathe a sigh of relief that they will not be involved in a benefits-based compulsory treatment regime.
My amendments seek to resolve the inconsistencies that the Government's amendment leaves in paragraphs 6 and 3 of the new schedules. Anyone reading those paragraphs will quickly realise these contradictions. For example, sub-paragraph (2) states:
22 Oct 2009 : Column 912
"Regulations under this paragraph must include provision for the requirement mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) to be imposed on a person",
and so on. Sub-paragraph (4) states:
"The requirements are that during the specified period ... the person ... must submit to treatment".
Likewise, sub-paragraph (5) states:
"The required treatment for any particular period",
I am sure that all sides of the House will welcome the government amendment on this crucial issue. It brings the Welfare Reform Bill into line with the Mental Health Act. However, in view of the consensus on this issue, I will not repeat the arguments which we rehearsed at length in Committee in favour of the principle of treatment based on the consent of the claimant. My amendment brings the rest of paragraph 6 into line with the government amendment. It replaces compulsory treatment with a requirement to attend an assessment for treatment. This brings sub-paragraph (4) into line with the government amendment. Much of the rest of paragraph 6 then becomes redundant.
I have redrafted parts of paragraph 6 to reflect the intentions of the Bill, while taking on board that treatment will not be required by the DWP, but will be subject to the consent of the claimant. My assumption is that treatment will, if possible, follow an assessment and will be a matter between the clinician and the claimant. Therefore, all the references in paragraph 6 to the requirements for treatment and the directions to the DWP are inappropriate-and they are certainly inappropriate in the context of the government amendment. Therefore something needs to be done.
I emphasise that the provision in the Bill for claimants dependent on drugs to be required to attend an assessment for treatment would be a radical departure from any benefits regime that we have had to date. It would offer the possibility of engaging claimants who hitherto have been excluded and very difficult to engage with services. Once they are involved in an assessment, there is a realistic prospect that many will become involved in a treatment or rehabilitation programme. Some may take time to sign up to the rigours of such a programme. After all, the process of withdrawal from hard drugs is a painful and unpleasant experience; but at least they will be on the road towards recovery, a healthy life and self-sufficiency once they put their foot through the door for an assessment for treatment. That is the first step. Without it, we get nowhere, but with it, I would be optimistic.
This is a constructive and realistic approach to a significant health problem that has been neglected for too long by successive Governments, at vast cost to the taxpayer. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment 41 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 42 to 44 because of pre-emption.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I have nothing to add to the statement that I made a moment ago, other than to recognise the passion and expertise with which the noble Baroness speaks on these issues.
22 Oct 2009 : Column 913
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, will the Minister reassure me? I declare an interest as a recently appointed lay member of the General Medical Council. Listening to the argument, I have become very concerned. Will the Minister give me an absolute assurance that no one registered with the General Medical Council will be invited to apply treatment to patients who do not want the treatment? It would be contrary to their registration with the GMC.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it would be outrageous for the Government to ask a member of the General Medical Council to do anything that was outwith its stated policy and ethics.
I say to the noble Baroness that if she feels able not to press the amendment, we will come back to this holistically at Third Reading.
Baroness Meacher: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
42: Schedule 3, page 74, line 46, at end insert-
"(5A) Regulations under this paragraph must include provision for securing that a person is not required to submit to medical or surgical treatment without the person's consent."
Amendments 44 to 48 not moved.
49: Schedule 3, page 82, line 42, at end insert-
"(5A) Regulations under this paragraph must include provision for securing that a person is not required to submit to medical or surgical treatment without the person's consent."
52: Schedule 3, page 84, line 28, at end insert-
"(aa) in paragraph 10A(1), which is inserted by section (Good cause for failure to comply with regulations etc)(2), after "13" insert "or Schedule 1A","
22 Oct 2009 : Column 914
Clause 14 : External provider social loans
54: Clause 14, page 18, line 31, at end insert-
"( ) specify the appeals process that will apply to applicants whose application for a loan from an external provider is refused."
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, I would that I had more time to expand on this but at this stage in the day I hope that I can dispatch this amendment with some expedition. However, I want to say in passing that for me this is potentially quite a serious issue.
By way of background, as the House will know, since December 2008 the Government have been promoting, if that is the right word, a consultation on the future of the Social Fund. The Social Fund is an absolutely crucial element in providing a safety net for low-income families. In Amendment 54, I am particularly concerned with the discretionary element of the Social Fund, which deals with the provision of budget loans, crisis loans and community care grants. Noble Lords will know how important they are. They are discretionary and in the recent past they have provided a lifeline to many families. Particularly in relation to the discretionary elements of the Social Fund, the review process, both internally within the department and externally with the independent review service, has been absolutely crucial in underpinning people's rights, dealing with appeals properly and establishing an ongoing review of how the fund is working.
I do not know where we are in relation to the consultation and whether the back-to-work White Paper will deal with the future of the Social Fund more generally, but that is not my purpose this afternoon. My purpose is simply to advert to the fact that the Government are struggling to move in the direction that they originally indicated. Early indications were that the Government were looking for other organisations to offer credit to customers. It came as no surprise to me that people were not killed in the crush in coming forward to deal with low-income families who are struggling and are therefore technically very bad credit risks when viewed from a commercial loans point of view. Ministers rather optimistically hoped that they would be able to get interest rates at 26 or 27 per cent. However, the KPMG study conducted for the department in November 2008 found that the interest rate would need to be something like 37 or 38 per cent before you could even get anyone interested in coming to serve that need in the market. I do not know where the generality of the consultation and the future of the Social Fund lie; I say only-and I say it with complete compassion and conviction-that it is a quintessentially important part of our existing system.
That brings me to the content of Amendment 54. I am considerably concerned at the prospect of any future changes to the Social Fund ending up with the external provider of Social Fund loans not being part of the external review fund that we have at the moment. I know Sir Richard Tilt well, as do other colleagues.
22 Oct 2009 : Column 915
6 pm
I noticed that the former Minister, Kitty Ussher, made a statement in a letter to the National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers, saying:
"External Provider Social Funds Loans will not be part of the Social Fund, therefore they will not be subject to the current Social Fund internal review process or to the independent review provided by the independent review service".
Instead, the Minister suggested that any reviewer complaint process would be covered by Financial Services Authority legislation. I am not an expert on that legislation but I think it covers organisations like Lehman Brothers and the Halifax Building Society. The regulations in the provisions for protection for consumers in that context are in a different universe from the kind of low-income families that have to make applications to the Social Fund. I find it incredible that that suggestion was ever made by a Minister representing the DWP, although she was not a Minister for very long. It is frightening.
This amendment underlines the importance of the confidence that the independent review service brings to the implementation of the Social Fund, particularly a discretionary Social Fund which is complex but provides an absolutely vital safety net for low-income families in this country. It should not be changed, altered or abandoned without serious consideration being made to provide a system of review. If it is not Sir Richard Tilt and his heirs and successors, it should be something equivalent to an independent review. Certainly, the Financial Services Authority is not a mechanism in which I would have any confidence for doing that. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Freud: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, has raised the question of appeals should someone be rejected for a loan by an external provider. A similar amendment was spoken to in Committee on 30 June, a debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. That debate served as a hook for a rather more general debate on the role of external providers. We learnt some useful information from the Minister, including the fact that it will be made clear in the invitation to tender documentation that any external provider of social loans must have a complaints procedure. That would be regulated by the FSA and there would also be the option of complaining to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, pointed out that external providers would need to be able to provide, as a flipside to a complaints procedure, the capacity to give detailed advice about the benefit system in the first place. The issue of how to complain is a pertinent one. It would be ideal if, from the outset, we could
22 Oct 2009 : Column 916
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for tabling this amendment and for outlining the background to it. I appreciate that he is seeking to ensure that an individual who may be refused a loan by an external provider would have a clear route through which he could challenge that decision. It is our intention that any external provider of social loans should have a complaints procedure, as the noble Lord, Lord Freud, acknowledged. That procedure could respond to both complaints of a customer-service nature and requests for a decision on a loan to be revisited. We would make that clear in our tendering documentation and it would be one of the criteria to be met by any successful bidder. We have said that we will introduce external-provider social loans only if and when the time is right, and that we will consult further on the detail of how any external-provider loans might work before we even think about introducing them, so we are some way back from going live on that. The Bill sets out the high-level arrangements for external provider social loans, and I believe it will be clear to us all that the fully developed scheme will be complex. We have never said otherwise.
It is clear from the brief exchanges today and at previous stages of the Bill that this is an area of particular concern to noble Lords, who would prefer to see more detail now. However, I do not think that specifying in the Bill the need for arrangements to include an appeals process for decisions that may be made by a provider or providers yet to be appointed is really the best way forward. However, I assure noble Lords that we will take this concern into account and look closely at arrangements for reconsidering a decision by an external provider. Those arrangements must reflect the options chosen in respect of the rest of the scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, referred to the consultation. We expect to consult in the near future-that is, before spring-and separately from any other consultation. I am conscious that that is not the detail the noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Freud, are seeking, but it is where we are. We are some way from this going live.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but I am less than happy with that answer. I think that to have been consulting since December 2008 and coming to the Dispatch Box to say that it will last until 2010 is a bit week-kneed. Speaking for myself, unless someone of Sir Richard Tilt's experience and authority in this field can be persuaded that what the Government have got to put
22 Oct 2009 : Column 917
Clause 15 : Power to restrict availability of social fund loans
56: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause-
"Regulations relating to use or disclosure of information: parliamentary control
In section 190 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (parliamentary control of orders and regulations), in subsection (1), before the "or" at the end of paragraph (ab) insert-
"(ac) regulations under section 122G(4) or 122H(5) which create an offence or increase the penalty for an offence;"."
57: After Clause 19, insert the following new Clause-
"Power to up-rate benefits following review in tax year 2009-10
In relation to the review under subsection (1) of section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (annual up-rating of benefits) in the tax year ending with 5 April 2010, the other provisions of that section are to have effect as if-
(a) after subsection (2) there were inserted-
"(2A) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the general level of prices is no greater at the end of the period under review than it was at the beginning of that period, the Secretary of State may, if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate having regard to the national economic situation and any other matters which the Secretary of State considers relevant, lay before Parliament the draft of an up-rating order-
(a) which increases by such a percentage or percentages as the Secretary of State thinks fit any of the sums mentioned in subsection (1); and
(b) stating the amount of any sums which are mentioned in subsection (1) but which the order does not increase.",
(b) in subsection (5), after "(2)" there were inserted "or (2A)", and
(c) in subsection (6)-
(i) after "(2)" there were inserted "or (2A)", and
(ii) after "requires" there were inserted "or authorises"."
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |