Third Reading: 3 Nov 2009: House of Lords debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)

Third Reading

Welfare Reform Bill

House of Lords debates, 3 November 2009, 4:42 pm

Clause 28 : Exemption from jobseeking conditions for victims of domestic violence

Amendment 1

Moved by Lord McKenzie of Luton

1: Clause 28, page 35, line 24, at end insert—

"( ) In section 37(1)(c) of that Act (regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure), after "or paragraph" insert "8B or"."

5:05 pm

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Labour)

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 1, I shall speak also to the other amendment in this group, Amendment 8. However, with the leave of the House, before addressing this first amendment, I should like to return to some matters that we debated earlier.

On Report, I said that we would consider further the Government's position to require those lone parents with a child in receipt of disability living allowance to undertake work-related activity. This matter was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. Work-related activity is an important part of our strategy to move lone parents from inactivity on benefits to an expectation of actively preparing for the time that they are able to work, but we are determined that lone parents must be able to balance these activities with family life. We have already announced that lone parents will be able to fit the work-related activities around school or free nursery hours and that no lone parent with a child under the age of three will be required to undertake such activities.

We realise that lone parents caring for younger children who receive disability living allowance may find fitting work-related activity around their caring responsibilities more difficult. We have already introduced a number of safeguards to ensure that lone parents can balance these responsibilities. After careful consideration, we have now decided to ensure that lone parents on income support who have a child under the age of 16 and in receipt of any rate of care component of disability living allowance will not be required to undertake work-related activities. Of course, they will still be offered full support to help them to prepare for work, which they can take up on a voluntary basis. As it was previously our intention that the exemption relating to children in receipt of the middle and highest rate DLA care component be dealt with in regulations, it is our intention that this procedure be applied to cover the extension to children in receipt of the lowest rate care component of DLA.

As regards Amendment 1, Clause 28 inserts a new paragraph in Schedule 1 to the Jobseekers Act 1995, which will introduce an automatic 13-week exemption from the jobseeker's allowance conditionality rules for victims of domestic violence. This clause, which was inserted in the Bill following a government amendment on Report, includes provision for secondary legislation to deal with more detailed issues, such as the exact definition of what constitutes domestic violence and the circumstances in which the exemption will be applied.

In considering this amendment, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed concern that regulations under this new provision would be subject to the negative procedure. It was particularly concerned that the power to define what is meant by "domestic violence" should be subject to appropriate parliamentary control. Amendment 1 will ensure that the affirmative procedures apply to all regulations made under this new provision.

Amendment 8 corrects a drafting omission and will ensure that orders made under Clause 47 will be made by way of statutory instrument. Noble Lords will recall that this clause covers the power to remove the exclusion of community care services from the right to control provisions. Clause 48 provides that such orders will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Winchester (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I thank the Minister most warmly for this welcome amendment. He and his whole team have bent over backwards to meet our concerns about lone parents on income support who have a child in receipt of the lower rate of the care component of DLA falling within the scope of mandatory work-related activity. His acknowledgement that it could be very difficult for some of those lone parents to undertake that mandatory work-related activity is much appreciated. We look forward to the regulations in due course.

As I have mentioned, the Minister's whole team has been helpful and I pay tribute to it, particularly to its leader, Andrew Latto, who has been helpfulness itself in answering the silly questions that I constantly ask. We could not have had better service, so I thank him most warmly.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend and the officials in the Box, because I know how difficult it can sometimes be to change policy quite so late when you are required to involve parliamentary counsel, even if you have been persuaded by the arguments. The fact that this is being carried by regulations gives everybody, including the Government, welcome elasticity in the system. I am grateful. There were many concerns about the Bill at the beginning. Like other Members of this House, I know just how hard my noble friend has worked to ensure that it has met the proper concerns of all your Lordships. We can confidently say as a result that the Bill goes forward to help lone parents to engage in the labour market without their children having in any sense to endure a penalty because of the commitments that their mother is required to undertake. I am grateful for my noble friend's amendment, which is splendid.

Baroness Turner of Camden (Labour)

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for the amendments and his statement. I, too, raised the matter of the pressure that might be exerted on lone parents to indulge in work-related activity if they were not in a position to do so—because they had a disabled child, for example. My noble friend's statement covered the concerns that many of us raised and I am grateful for it.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (Liberal Democrat)

I concur with everything that has been said in relation to the Minister's statement on disability living allowance. It was a tricky one: Ministers must have had some difficulty persuading the technicians, not to mention the Treasury, about the definitions. I think that this will affect a relatively small number of people, but, my goodness, it will make a transformational difference to those whom it does. It could not have been an easy battle and the Minister deserves the credit that he has been given today.

On domestic violence, the 30-week exemption is extremely welcome. That was again hard fought for in a very constructive Committee stage. However, I hope that the 30 weeks will allow some discretion. I do not think that many cases will need more than half a year, but there may be some. As a former divorce lawyer in a previous age, I know that some family circumstances mean that domestic violence cases can become intractable and go on for years, so a little discretion at the edges for some of the advisers dealing with these tricky decisions would be welcome. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. I am absolutely in favour of the amendment as it stands, but if he could assure the House that some flexibility might still be available in exceptional circumstances, to make sure that we protect people in danger of some really vicious violence at the hands of their former spouses and partners, it would be welcome.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Labour)

My Lords, I thank every noble Lord who has spoken in support of the amendment. I also appreciate their thanks to members of the Bill team—I think that they will have chance to do that more fully in a little while. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked whether there would be additional discretion in relation to the domestic violence provision. Yes, there is.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Clause 31 : Contracting out functions under Jobseekers Act 1995

Amendment 2

Moved by Lord McKenzie of Luton

2: Clause 31, page 36, line 33, after "paragraph" insert "5A or"

5:15 pm

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Labour)

I shall speak also to the other government amendments in this group. The amendments will place in the Bill the reassurances that I gave on Report in relation to drug testing and mandation to treatment. The main thrust of the amendments deals with voluntary and mandatory rehabilitation plans, drug testing and the replacement of the substance-related assessment with two assessments. The remaining amendments are consequential and I shall deal with them at the end. In making the amendments, we have taken account of the opinions both of drug professionals who work on these issues and, of course, of noble Lords, with their great experience.

Mandating individuals to medical treatment is not going to work for those who are not ready, but doing nothing is no longer an option, and problem drug users must be expected to engage with the rehabilitation process where their drug use is a barrier to their finding work. After careful thought, we have also amended the drug testing provisions to make the policy more effective.

Amendments 10 to 12 for jobseeker's allowance and Amendments 19 to 21 for ESA divide the substance-related assessment into two stages: an initial assessment and a follow-up interview a few days later to discuss matters arising at the initial assessment. Where problem drug users are not already in treatment and are neither prepared nor ready to engage with treatment services, they will be required to attend a series of assessments with the aim of encouraging them into treatment. If they fail to attend these assessments without good cause, they will be subject to a benefit sanction. Amendment 13 inserts a provision into the drug testing provisions that enables us to offer an individual who refuses to attend an assessment because they are adamant that they are not a drug user a drug test in order to demonstrate this. If they refuse the test, they can be sanctioned and re-referred for the assessment.

As indicated in the debate at the Report stage, we have looked at further limiting the circumstances in which mandatory drug tests would apply. To this end, individuals will be directed to undertake a mandatory drug test only where they have not self-identified their drug misuse, are not already in treatment, have not been referred to a substance-related assessment on the strength of information obtained from the criminal justice system, and have been subject to sanctions for not attending the substance-related assessment on two consecutive occasions. The Bill provides that permissible samples for testing are urine and other samples as described, so long as it is not an intimate sample as listed in some detail at paragraph 3(8) of the new schedule. Our current intentions are that the test will be based on samples of saliva.

Amendment 15 introduces powers to mandate problem drug users who refuse or are not ready to enter into treatment to agree a rehabilitation plan, which will require in particular that they attend a six-week education and motivational programme. The programme will encourage problem drug users to engage with treatment services. If the individual refuses to attend or does not complete the programme, a sanction will be applied. If the individual attends the educational and motivational sessions and decides that treatment is not for them at the present time, no sanction will be imposed. If, however, after a period of time signs of drug use being a barrier to work are displayed, they will be referred back to the assessment process. This ensures continuity of contact with treatment providers until such time as a person feels ready to receive treatment.

It is important that those identified as problem drug users take the first steps on the journey to overcome their addiction. Where claimants take up treatment voluntarily, they will be offered a treatment allowance and a place on a new drug and employment support programme that will provide integrated and personalised support for problem drug users on JSA or ESA. This allowance will be paid to the claimant as long as they agree via a voluntary rehabilitation plan to maintain their treatment and take advantage of the additional support available. It will remove some of the normal conditions of entitlement for benefit in order to allow drug users the time and space to focus on their recovery. For example, this will mean that those on JSA will not be required to sign on or show that they are actively seeking work.

Concerns have been expressed as to the extent that being labelled as being in receipt of a treatment allowance could expose the recipient to stigma and discrimination if they were to apply for housing benefit or concessionary rates of paying for goods and services. I therefore take this opportunity to provide reassurance that on any supporting documentation, and therefore from the perspective of the outside world, the individual will be recorded as being either on ESA or JSA and that there will be no mention of either a treatment allowance or relaxed conditionality.

If an individual drops out of the programme because they are not adhering to their voluntary rehabilitation plan, they will be returned to mainstream benefit with no sanctions. If, after a period of time, signs of drug use being a barrier to work are displayed, they will be referred back to the assessment process. Amendment 24 makes the same changes to the provision for ESA customers.

Finally, consequential Amendments 18 and 28 insert the new rehabilitation plan provisions into the evaluation report for JSA and ESA respectively, while Amendment 2 inserts the voluntary rehabilitation plan's functions into the contracting-out clause for JSA. Amendment 26 carries out the same function for ESA.

I hope that noble Lords will agree that this represents a balanced package of measures to encourage problem drug users to engage with treatment services and with the additional help and support on offer through the benefits system. I urge noble Lords to support the amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Freud (Shadow Minister, Work and Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, the scale of the drug problem in this country is clearly most disturbing, with 400,000 problem drug users, the bulk of whom—some 350,000, according to the Government—are on benefit. Against this challenge, the Government's response looks late, timid, underresourced and, regrettably, underresearched. As was made clear in Committee, under the plans in the Bill there will be a two-year pilot, which will then be assessed. It will be surprising to many that the Government have not already worked out what solutions may be more or less effective in this area. It is, after all, a problem that has been growing for decades now.

The pilots will involve 10,000 problem drug users. This is a bare 2.5 per cent of the total number, so we are hardly going to see a major revolution in provision. I hope that the approach is less one-dimensional than it appears in the Bill. Many, if not most, drug users have a number of problems, particularly psychological ones. The treatment here seems focused on drug rehabilitation and yet, if the psychological problems are not addressed at the same time, relapse rates will inevitably be high. We have still precious few centres that provide holistic support for this group of people. My concern is that the pilots will be completed and, in three years' time, we will find that we are, sadly, not much further along.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I take a different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, but I understand the point that he makes. I am still taken aback by the inclusion of drugs in the social security welfare-to-work field, which fell out of the sky in the summer of 2008 with the White Paper—or was it the Green Paper? I cannot remember. I have been watching this subject develop in parliamentary terms since 1983 and drugs have never been a part of welfare reform. As far as I am concerned—and my experience in drugs is much more limited than that of my other colleagues—drugs should be a health problem, not a social security problem. It is almost as inappropriate as Section 8 and the abolition of income support. I was determined to get that in somehow before Third Reading was over and I have now got it safely off my chest. The inclusion of drugs is a mistake.

Having said that, I think that these amendments substantially improve the Bill. I again pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who is unfortunately unable to be in her place today, and to the work that she did in driving opposition to the Government's original position. Where we are now is at least defensible: we are not tying people to the floor and inflicting treatment on them that they do not want, which is progress. But the Government will have to watch this very carefully and I, for one, would have been happier if these provisions had not been anywhere near a social security Bill of this significance. I do not think it appropriate that they should be there but, if they are to be in the Bill, it is much better in this format than in the earlier format.

Baroness Uddin (Labour)

My Lords, I declare an interest: I work for a national drug agency. I am hesitant to make any comment because it is purely coincidental that I am in the Chamber at this point.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that it is surprising to see this issue in this context. I have some little knowledge about the sufferings of men and women under these conditions. There is not enough co-ordination of services, and there are not enough centres of excellence, to address some of the problems that many of these sufferers already face, one of the main ones being stigma. Services are not co-operative because in many circumstances this is regarded as a self-inflicted wound, so the services that sufferers receive are already inadequate in many senses.

I welcome this discussion. Drugs and drug rehabilitation have been far from the mainstream agenda for a long time, but they affect the most vulnerable people in our communities—not only the individuals who are suffering but their families. There is some good work in progress up and down the country, run by various national organisations, looking at the drastic impact of this on families, but that has not yet been taken on board. I hear all the arguments about why there should be some punitive measures but I am concerned about the idea. I hope that my noble friend will take that on board and urge officials and staff in the services to be cautious; there is still not enough information and training within the workforce about supporting substance misusers.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Labour)

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in response to the amendments. I am not sure, from the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, whether he supports or opposes them. I agree with him that drug users often have multiple issues that they have to face, such as psychological issues and mental health problems, which is why the approach that is reflected in these amendments is so important.

That leads me on to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, about why these provisions are anywhere near a welfare reform Bill. The reality is that many of these individuals lead chaotic lives at the moment, and in the benefits system they end up being sanctioned without the sort of support that should be available to them.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who I now see in her place. She pressed the Government from the Cross Benches and helped us to focus on the fact that the key thing is to encourage people to be assessed and treated but to do so on a voluntary basis. Mandating people to treatment will not unlock the problem; individuals themselves have to reach the conclusion that they need to be supported.

I make the same point to my noble friend Lady Uddin. Of course there will never be enough resources to do everything that we want but this is an important step. This is not about punishing people; it is about enabling them to move towards the labour market, get into work and overcome the challenges that their drug misuse faces them with.

Amendment 2 agreed.

Clause 35 : Power to rename council tax benefit

Amendment 3

Moved by Baroness Turner of Camden

3: Clause 35, page 41, line 11, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Baroness Turner of Camden (Labour)

I shall speak also to my Amendment 7, which is grouped with this one, as it is on a similar topic. Noble Lords will know that I have endeavoured, throughout the discussion on the Bill, to secure a change in the title of council tax benefit. The reason for that was a suggestion made to me by the British Legion, which has undertaken much research among veterans, many of whom are entitled to council tax benefit but do not claim it. The research indicated that more would claim it if it were renamed "council tax rebate". It is a matter of dignity, the British Legion believes; many are too proud to claim a benefit even though they may need it.

On Report, a government amendment set out arrangements for the renaming of the benefit. This was accepted by the House at the time, but the provision said that the Secretary of State,

"may by order provide for the benefit",

to be renamed, and so on. It seemed to me that "may" was rather indefinite. In my amendment, I suggest that it should be changed to "shall". I hope that my noble friend will feel that it is a positive amendment that would be acceptable to him.

As for the rest of the situation, and my Amendment 7, one problem with what the Government proposed was that there was no timeframe and no indication of how long it would take before the renaming. That was a matter of some concern to the RBL, which has been briefing me over this period. I have set out an alternative suggestion in Amendment 7, in which the Houses of Parliament should discuss and come to a decision within three months of this Act coming into force. In other words, there would be a renaming, but we would not have to wait forever for it, since it would happen within three months of the passage of the Act. That is important from the standpoint of those interested in this amendment, because we are talking about people who are not very young. Many of them have been around for a very long time and are getting older all the time—and old people do not have long to wait. Therefore, it seems reasonable to set a timeframe for renaming this benefit.

When we discussed this matter at Report, the Minister was kind enough to say that he would bring back further amendments on this issue, although not on the timing. He has done so in Amendments 4, 5 and 6, which we shall shortly have the opportunity to discuss. I am very much in favour of those amendments and, when we come to discuss them, I can say that again. However, I think that the timeframe is important, and I should like some indication from the Minister whether, if the three months that I propose is not acceptable, some kind of timeframe can be indicated as to when and how long people will have to wait before the reform that they seek becomes available to them. I beg to move.

5:30 pm

Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)

My Lords, I am sorry in a way that this amendment has not been grouped with the subsequent group of amendments, because it could be a little difficult repeating our arguments. I have no particularly strong views on whether we should re-label council tax benefit as council tax rebate. On the one hand, that would detach it from the benefit system, which for some people would be desirable. However, on the other hand, others are passported on to it by virtue of housing benefit, and you may lose the connection with passporting by renaming the benefit a rebate. On one hand, there are gainers while, on the other, there may be losers.

Will my noble friend the Minister, in reply to my noble friend Lady Turner, or in his own speech later on, remind the House whether former servicemen, particularly those with war pensions—the constituency for which the RBL, rightly, campaigns—are entitled to 50 per cent reduction as of right of their council tax? If so, that may to some degree account for the relatively smaller take-up. It may be a dignity issue, but the sums involved may become that much lower by virtue of the reduction in the council tax bill for those people. As we all know, in looking at claims to benefits, although substantial sums are unclaimed, very often, as with pension credits, people at the very edges may have only £2, £3, £5 or £10 to claim and may think that it is not worth the hassle, because they judge the sums as relatively modest. Could my noble friend help me on that point?

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I support the thrust of the amendment, simply on the basis that Governments leave the statute book littered with provisions that are never enacted. You do not need to be a political scientist to work out that there could be a change in government in the next few months. The House at Report is entitled to get a reasonable timeframe. I think that three months is very tight; I would not like to undertake that responsibility myself. However, the case is a powerful one, and I think that—speaking for myself—the House would settle for some assurance that this will not be just another bit of legislation that gathers dust on the shelf.

Lord Freud (Shadow Minister, Work and Pensions; Conservative)

The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, is to be congratulated on her determination to pursue the issue of renaming the council tax benefit. It is clearly a matter close to her heart, and it is clear from our debates in Committee and on Report that the measures she is seeking are acceptable to all parties, and particularly welcomed by us. The power to make all the changes are in the Bill, and all that is required now is for the Government to make it clear that they are going to use that power.

The noble Baroness is right to press the Minister on implementation. We do not wish to see the power to change "benefit" to "rebate" languishing on the statute book but never used, which, as the noble Lord said, has happened in so many other instances. We accept that there are more preparations to be made than might at first meet the eye before the change can successfully be enacted, but that must not be allowed to become an excuse for inaction.

Noble Lords will remember from Committee that the leader of the Conservative Party, my right honourable friend David Cameron, made it clear in his response to the Royal British Legion that, should this Government fail to act, a Conservative Government led by him would do so instead. Putting that to one side, we are quite sure that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to put to rest any lingering concerns held by noble Lords, and indeed those outside this House, that the Government would prefer this issue to go quietly into the long grass. He could do much in his response to set out what steps the Government are currently taking to prepare for the implementation of this measure, and by what stage he expects it to be complete. I know that he was reluctant to be that explicit at Report.

I accept that this may call for a certain amount of flexibility in timing, which is why I am hesitant to support the three-month time limit in the noble Baroness's Amendment 7. However, if we have an understanding of the work the Government are undertaking, it would help Parliament to keep an eye on the progress being made. We would prefer to hear a robust statement of assurance from the Minister than any more formal process.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Labour)

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling these amendments, which clearly demonstrate her commitment to reducing pensioner poverty by addressing the poor take-up of council tax benefit among pensioners. We have already done much to tackle pensioner poverty. I have referred to the 900,000 pensioners whom we have helped out of poverty since 1998. We are committed to ensuring that pensioners receive the support to which they are entitled, which is why we have already simplified the claims process. Since November 2008, pensioners can claim housing benefit and council tax benefit with pension credit entirely over the phone. The claim is forwarded to the local authority without the need for a signed claim form. I should say to my noble friend Lady Hollis that the change of name should not impact on the passporting of benefits. It is too soon for some of the recent measures we have taken to have fed through into the latest take-up figures. Nevertheless we accept that there is scope to do more.

We have engaged now in several debates on this matter. I set out the Government's position at Report, last Tuesday. This is a change which we wholeheartedly support and a power that we intend to use. We have been convinced by the arguments so eloquently presented by the Royal British Legion and my noble friend in recent months and have demonstrated that we intend to make this small but significant change to help to remove a barrier so that pensioners take up the help they so richly deserve.

The Government have already said that we intend to make this change. The amendment moved in this House last week, now Clause 35 of this Bill, provides an order-making power which will allow the name change from benefit to rebate to be made quickly when we have completed the essential work needed to successfully implement the change. We have listened to the debate and understand the strength of feeling so clearly expressed by noble Lords again today and by the Royal British Legion on this matter. Because of this, we want to go further.

The amendment that I will move shortly will confirm that the order-making power can be used only to change the name of the entitlement to council tax rebate—a very clear commitment, I believe. In her amendments today, however, my noble friend has pushed us further, by seeking in Amendment 3 to substitute the word "may" with "shall". I appreciate that the use of one word over another can make a big difference, and could help to provide the further assurance that noble Lords are looking for on this matter. I am therefore happy to accept this amendment and state unequivocally in the Bill that the Government intend to make this change. I hope that this reassures my noble friend, and I am indebted to her for giving the Government the opportunity to make it crystal clear.

I know that concerns remain over the timing of the change; we have heard those again this afternoon. My noble friend has proposed a further amendment to gain some more certainty of the date for implementation. I will, however, have to ask her to withdraw that amendment, as we just cannot commit to a timetable at this point. Amendment 7, tabled by my noble friend, aims to firm up the timing of the change. It seeks to commit the Government to the laying of the first order before Parliament within three months of the coming into force of this Bill. It goes further in requiring approval by resolution of each House of Parliament for all orders made under the power—not just the first. I shall deal with that aspect later.

Clause 59 provides for the commencement of the provisions of the Bill, and under it those provisions will therefore come into force on the day appointed by order made by the Secretary of State. As I have already made clear, the Government are committed to making the change as soon as is reasonably possible, but it is not possible to make any commitment to a timeframe at this stage without first completing the detailed work needed to assess the practicalities for local authorities and the precise costs involved. That will require reasonable time in which to properly consult them about the impact on their operational delivery of council tax and benefits, and on the best way to help customers take up the entitlement.

It is of overwhelming importance to ensure that when we implement the change it is done properly and effectively, so that it can make the difference we all desire—to help customers understand what help they are entitled to, and not to be put off from applying for it. It will take time to get that right, and with the best will in the world, changes—even one that looks as straightforward as this—cannot happen in a short space of time. One element of it is taking the time and care to deliver subordinate legislation that is accurate and provides all the necessary safeguards for claimants. That will have to be informed by discussion with local authorities and other stakeholders to ensure that whatever is done, and whenever, is effective and workable.

Three months is not a great amount of time to properly consult local authorities and to prepare regulations, but more important than the drafting process are the practical issues. I have already spoken about the extensive changes needed to computer systems. There are some 380 local authorities using several different systems. References to the benefit are embedded in IT systems used by each and every local authority, and in various parts of central government that link to those systems to facilitate easier claiming. All of those references will need to be changed. Local authorities must have at least six months lead-time for making changes involving IT, and some changes—even those that appear straightforward—take a lot longer, particularly when the effect is far-reaching.

Changes will also be needed to DWP computer systems, including those that provide the essential link with pensioner customers at the point of claim. Programmes for changing IT in DWP are always heavily subscribed, and it is essential to allow adequate time so that a previously unplanned change of this scale can be accommodated without risking other scheduled changes. It is not only IT systems that are affected. References to council tax benefit are made in a wide range of forms and leaflets, not only those relating to claims to the benefit, but in other information issued. In response to our soundings, one local authority has submitted a list of 115 letters that would need to be changed.

Moreover, local authorities and advisers must be in a position to effectively convey what this change means in order for it to have the impact that we all want. If we are to avoid confusing existing and potential customers, all of these references—in forms, leaflets and letters—will need to be changed. Simply telling people that we have changed the name while continuing to talk about council tax benefit in leaflets, forms and computer-generated letters would, I suggest, be a recipe for chaos. There is a danger that that confusion could actually reduce take-up.

It is also likely to be critical that we should time the introduction of a new name with the start of the new financial year, so that arrangements can be made to send information of the change with new bills. That is the only sensible time to implement the change of name, and will be much more cost-effective than making a mid-year change. I want to assure noble Lords again that we will work closely with local authorities and key partners to carry out this work as quickly as possible. We have already begun that process, but I hope that noble Lords will understand and accept that it is simply not possible to set out a timetable at this stage.

The second amendment tabled by the noble Baroness also provides that it should be not just the first use, but any subsequent change in use of the order-making power, which would require the approval of Parliament through the affirmative procedure. At Report, I drew the attention of the House to the Delegated Powers Committee recommendation on this matter, and I explained that we would return at Third Reading to amend the Bill accordingly. In fact, the government amendment that we have laid goes further, by amending the name to council tax rebate. This means that we no longer need to set out the circumstances under which any further change to the name would require the approval of Parliament by affirmative resolution. It will simply not be possible for there to be a subsequent change of name, and the circumstances covered by the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee will therefore never arise.

Furthermore, I suggest to the House that Amendment 7, in the name of my noble friend, would, if moved, constrain disproportionately the Government and the House itself. We would want to introduce changes as soon as possible; to enable that to happen, one possibility might be to bring in an element of phasing to local authorities that were ready, or phasing by category of customer. If that were to be the case, we would not want to take up unnecessary parliamentary time by requiring Parliament to debate subsequent orders that did nothing more than rolling out the change to the remaining local authorities and customers.

Noble Lords raised several additional points in their presentations. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, pressed me on the timeframe. I think that I have explained why we simply cannot give one, much as we would like to. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, we do intend to use this power. This is not about kicking matters into the long grass. Forgive me if I do not take the opportunity to comment on the prospects for a change in Government, or for David Cameron. I am sure that we shall have another opportunity to do that. My noble friend Lady Hollis asked about discounts on council tax for ex-service personnel. Discounts for particular categories of people are down to individual local authorities; that is the policy of Communities and Local Government, but I am happy to write further on that.

As I explained, I am happy to accept the first amendment tabled by my noble friend, but I urge her not to proceed with the second as we simply cannot commit to a timeframe, and certainly not to a timetable of "within three months". That is simply not deliverable, and it would be quite wrong for me to stand here and suggest otherwise to noble Lords.

5:45 pm

Baroness Turner of Camden (Labour)

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that extensive explanation, and for his acceptance of my Amendment 3. He is quite right that the fact that the Government accept the amendment gives people who are interested in it—and in the change in name—the assurance they seek; that the Government are serious about it. I am very grateful for his acknowledgement that it is necessary and that he is prepared to accept Amendment 3.

On the timeframe, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in support of that question. It is a problem, but I accept that there are complications because of the involvement of local authorities. I am grateful for the assurances we have had that the Government desire to have the measure operative as soon as possible and that this is not what you might call a "long-grass" type of legislation where everybody votes for it and then nothing happens. That is not the Government's intention, as I understand it. I am very grateful for the extensive explanation, which will appear on the record, illustrating the difficulties involved with such a detailed measure involving local authorities. I thank the Minister for accepting Amendment 3. In view of the explanation that he has given, I shall not move Amendment 7 when we reach it.

Amendment 3 agreed.

Amendment 4

Moved by Lord McKenzie of Luton

4: Clause 35, page 41, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert "(council tax benefit) to be known instead, either generally or in cases prescribed by the order, as council tax rebate."

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Labour)

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 4 and speak to the other amendments with which it is grouped. We have just debated setting a clear timeframe for introducing a change in the name of the benefit. As I explained, I am unable to commit to a clear timetable for implementing the name change until the further work needed has been completed, but the Government have listened to the debate and the strength of feeling behind the issue. As I have already said, a key point that noble Lords made on Report was on the central importance of the name. The Royal British Legion focused particularly on the impact that a simple name change, from council tax benefit to council tax rebate, could have on take-up of the entitlement.

During our debates there has been considerable support, from all sides of the House, for the name change to "rebate" proposed by my noble friend. There are other possibilities, but we agree that a name change from council tax benefit to council tax rebate accurately describes the true nature of the benefit. It is hard to imagine that another title would improve on this. I am therefore very pleased to come back to noble Lords with further amendments which reflect the consensus that the new name for council tax benefit should be council tax rebate, and that this should be clearly stated in the Bill. This means we can get on with the important work of preparing local authorities for the change of council tax benefit to council tax rebate.

Baroness Turner of Camden (Labour)

My Lords, all I can say in response to that is thank you very much.

Lord Freud (Shadow Minister, Work and Pensions; Conservative)

We thoroughly approve of the noble Lord's amendments.

Amendment 4 agreed.

Amendments 5 and 6

Moved by Lord McKenzie of Luton

5: Clause 35, page 41, line 17, leave out "the relevant" and insert "council tax"

6: Clause 35, page 41, line 19, leave out "the relevant" and insert "council tax"

Amendments 5 and 6 agreed.

Amendment 7 not moved.

Clause 47 : Power to repeal exclusion of community care services

Amendment 8

Moved by Lord McKenzie of Luton

8: Clause 47, page 49, line 33, at end insert—

"(7) The power to make an order under subsection (1) or (5) is exercisable by statutory instrument."

Amendment 8 agreed.

Amendment 9

Moved by Lord McKenzie of Luton

9: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—

"Report on operation of travel authorisation amendments

(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the operation during the review period of the amendments of the 1991 Act made by section 50 and Schedule 5 so far as those amendments relate to the disqualification of any person for holding or obtaining a travel authorisation.

(2) "The review period" is the period of 24 months beginning with the day on which section 50 and Schedule 5 come into force in relation to the disqualification of any person for holding or obtaining a travel authorisation.

(3) The Secretary of State must—

(a) prepare the report, and

(b) lay it before Parliament,

within 6 months from the end of the review period.

(4) The continued effect of the travel authorisation amendments depends on whether the Secretary of State makes an order under this subsection within the relevant period providing for those amendments to continue to have effect.

(5) "The relevant period" means the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the report is laid before Parliament; and, in reckoning this period, no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament—

(a) is dissolved or prorogued, or

(b) is adjourned for more than 4 days.

(6) If no order is made as mentioned in subsection (4), the Secretary of State must instead make an order under this subsection containing such amendments of the 1991 Act as the Secretary of State considers necessary to secure that the effect of the travel authorisation amendments is reversed.

(7) The effect of the travel authorisation amendments is to be regarded as reversed if the 1991 Act is amended so that it has the same effect in relation to the disqualification of any person for holding or obtaining a travel authorisation as it would have had if this Act had not been passed.

(8) An order under subsection (6) may contain consequential provision and transitional provision or savings.

(9) The consequential provision that may be made by an order under subsection (6) includes, in particular, provision amending, repealing or revoking—

(a) any provision of any Act passed before the making of the order, or

(b) any provision of any instrument made under any Act before the making of the order.

(10) Any power to make an order under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.

(11) An order under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(12) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (6) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(13) In this section—

"the 1991 Act" means the Child Support Act 1991 (c. 48);

"travel authorisation" has the same meaning as in section 39B of the 1991 Act;

"the travel authorisation amendments" means the amendments of the 1991 Act made by section 50 and Schedule 5 so far as relating to the disqualification of any person for holding or obtaining a travel authorisation."

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Labour)

My Lords, Amendment 9 fulfils the commitment made on Report, and follows a similar amendment put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Freud and Lord Taylor, on Report. It will help to ensure that Parliament can properly review the effectiveness of the power to disqualify a recalcitrant, non-resident parent from holding travel authorisation. It will do this in the same way as already provided for in relation to the driving licence provisions by Clause 51, prior to the legislation coming into permanent effect.

This amendment will ensure that a report on the operation of the driving licence and travel authorisation powers must be put before Parliament within six months from the end of a two-year review period. Based on the success of these measures, the Secretary of State will have the option of making the administrative system permanent or reverting to the existing court-based powers for either or both. Any decision to maintain an administrative system must be made by an order subject to the affirmative procedure and noble Lords will thereby have an opportunity to debate the success of each of these measures prior to a permanent administrative system being introduced.

As I said on Report, I appreciate the movement that the Opposition have made on this issue since it was first raised in 2007. I believe this amendment represents a significant workable compromise. I beg to move.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I feel a bit short-changed in regard to this matter. I thought that we were talking about sunset clauses, but actually this is a pilot scheme. A pilot scheme is not a sunset clause. I do not want to labour that because we are where we are, but I would be much happier with a straightforward measure. The very powerful arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, during the passage of last year's child support legislation were much more in that vein than the amendment we are discussing, which stands in the Minister's name. I wish to register that objection but, more importantly, what will the report contain that will make it a useful tool for the House to consider in two years' time to enable it to decide whether it is sensible to continue with these powers? The House will have nothing to compare the report with. It would be much more sensible to, say, run one system in Callendar Park and another in Plymouth and compare and contrast them after two years. You would then be able to see what the counterfactual was.

CMEC and the Child Support Agency will change their behaviour as soon as this amendment is passed and motor as hard as they can for the next two years to ensure that the measure looks as good as possible and then present the House with no alternatives. What are we expected to say? What will the report contain that will enable us to weigh in the balance whether the current system, which contains the protection offered by the court, is better than or different from the new system? All we will get is a report on whether the new system has worked. The Government will pile resources into this to ensure that it works, count up the extra child maintenance that is paid—I am in favour of that—and then say that there is no alternative. I do not know how the proposed report will enable the House to make a sensible judgment at a future date on whether to keep the new powers or to revert to the status quo. Until I receive reassurance on that, I am not sure that I support the amendment.

Lord Freud (Shadow Minister, Work and Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, I come at this with somewhat less passion than the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. I thank the Minister for the amendment, which I believe achieves the ends that I sought on Report. It was extremely peculiar to have two different approaches to assessing the impact of removing driving licences and passports respectively from non-resident and recalcitrant—as the noble Lord described it—parents. The amendment brings the measures into line. I welcome that attack of common sense.

On that point of agreement, of which we have had many, and as we draw to the end of Third Reading, I thank the Minister and the Bill team for shepherding us through the Bill, which we are extremely pleased to support.

Lord Skelmersdale (- Shadow Minister, Shadow Minister; Conservative)

My Lords, I have been pursuing this matter for almost two years. However, since just before the Summer Recess, I have been extremely careful not to interfere publicly in the deliberations of my noble friend Lord Freud. The Minister has my personal thanks for coming up with a sensible answer at a sensible time. I say more power to his elbow.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Labour)

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this issue. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Freud and Lord Skelmersdale, for their support and kind words, and for their kind words about the Bill as a whole and the work of the Bill team. This is not the time to reopen and go over the debates about the difference between driving licences and travel documents, as we have debated that previously.

I should to say to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that the provisions have the same effect as a sunset clause. A power cannot be used for more than two years without another process kicking in. He asked, "What on earth good will these reports be at the end of that period?". I have not sat down to work out in detail what they might cover, but I presume that such reports would cover the number of occasions that the provisions have been used, what might happen under the appeals process, and how that has progressed. They might touch on the amount of money that has been collected for children by using these processes. One could envisage a range of useful things coming out of a report that would enable a judgment to be made about whether or not they continue. However, that is a debate to have when we see the reports in due course.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Freud and Lord Skelmersdale, for their support. I am not sure where the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, stands on this, but I hope that he will not seek to divide the House.

Amendment 9 agreed.

Schedule 3 : Claimants dependent on drugs etc.

Amendments 10 to 13

Moved by Lord McKenzie of Luton

10: Schedule 3, page 78, line 7, at end insert "and a subsequent interview (a "drugs interview") with an approved person to discuss any matters arising out of that assessment"

11: Schedule 3, page 78, line 32, at end insert "or a drugs interview"

12: Schedule 3, page 78, line 34, after "assessment" insert "or drugs interview"

13: Schedule 3, page 78, line 35, at end insert—

"(4A) Regulations under this paragraph may, in particular, make provision for a requirement imposed on a person ("P") under this paragraph to cease to have effect if—

(a) P agrees to provide a sample, in accordance with instructions given by an approved person, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is or has been any drug in P's body, and

(b) the sample provided indicates that no drug is or has been in P's body."

Amendments 10 to 13 agreed.

Amendment 14

Moved by Lord McKenzie of Luton

14: Schedule 3, page 80, leave out lines 12 to 37

6:00 pm

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Labour)

My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. I bring them forward to place in the Bill the reassurances that I gave in response to concerns expressed in Committee on medical details and the passing on of information that the department receives.

These amendments tighten up the data-sharing powers considerably, in particular by preventing Jobcentre Plus from obtaining information about a person's medical and social work history. The amendments also provide that the information provided by the police and probation service can be used only by those involved in administering the new programme.

The revised data-sharing provisions are intended to help Jobcentre Plus identify problem drug users so that they can be provided with the support that they need to prepare for and find work. We are aware that some problem drug users will not disclose that they have a drug problem due to stigma or embarrassment, or for other reasons. I also take this opportunity to remind noble Lords that in criminal proceedings the prosecution may adduce no evidence relating to any answer given by a person to the department about his or her drug use.

Information will be provided about persons who have tested positive for drug use when arrested or charged for an offence by the police, but who fail to attend either an initial or a follow-up assessment of their drug use. Information will also be provided by the probation service to Jobcentre Plus on individuals subject to drug rehabilitation requirements issued by the court as part of a community sentence. Such people should already be in treatment, but provision of their details will enable them to be included in the programme. Existing powers will allow information about people who have recently left prison to be provided by the Prison Service. However, all these information flows will be one-way. Jobcentre Plus will not provide data to the criminal justice system. The information will be passed on only to Jobcentre Plus service providers or the drugs workers responsible for carrying out the substance-related assessments.

The information will be disclosed elsewhere only if Jobcentre Plus, or the person holding the information, is ordered by a court to do so, or where they are required to disclose in order to comply with a statutory duty. As a further safeguard, the affirmative parliamentary procedure will apply to all the regulations made under Schedule 3. Before they can come into force, they will have to be approved in draft by both Houses. The regulations will also be drafted to ensure that the requirements that they impose on benefit claimants are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

With these restrictions now in place and the reassurances I have given, I hope that noble Lords will accept these amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Meacher (Crossbench)

My Lords, I apologise to the House and particularly the Minister that I was unable to be in the Chamber when he moved the raft of government amendments relating to Clause 9 and Schedule 3, which offer a real opportunity to draw in claimants who are dependent on drugs to a process which might induce them over time to accept treatment, and thus offer them a real opportunity—probably not immediately—to find a way back to a normal life and health, and to work. I am most grateful to the Minister, other Ministers and the Bill team for their work on those amendments.

This group of amendments in relation to information supports the general thrust of the earlier amendments and, therefore, is critical in enabling the DWP to play its part in the real rehabilitation of this most excluded group of claimants. If these claimants are criminalised under our Home Office provisions, they will run a mile if they feel that information that they give to the DWP is passed to others who could cause them severe damage. That would prevent the other important amendments having the effect that I believe they will have.

I pay tribute to the Minister and the Bill team for this series of amendments that dovetails with the others. We now have a coherent and constructive Clause 9 and Schedule 3, and this has transformed my feeling about the potential of the Bill for public good.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (also in the Department for Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Labour)

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for her comments in support of these provisions and the earlier amendments. Particularly, I pay tribute to the fact that it was her due diligence in Committee which caused us to focus on and, in a sense, recast the thrust of these provisions. If we have ended up in a good place, much of the credit is due to the noble Baroness.

Amendment 14 agreed.

Amendments 15 to 28

Moved by Lord McKenzie of Luton

15: Schedule 3, page 80, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 82 and insert—

"Voluntary and mandatory rehabilitation plans

5A (1) Regulations may make provision for or in connection with—

(a) securing that a person ("P") who at any time complies with a voluntary rehabilitation plan is not required to meet the jobseeking conditions at that time; and

(b) suspending any jobseeker's agreement to which P is a party for any period during which P complies with a voluntary rehabilitation plan.

(2) Regulations under this paragraph may include provision for the consequences set out in sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) to follow only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that—

(a) P is dependent on, or has a propensity to misuse, any drug, and

(b) P's dependency or propensity is a factor affecting P's prospects of obtaining or remaining in work.

(3) For the purposes of this paragraph a "voluntary rehabilitation plan" is an agreement entered into by the Secretary of State and P under which P agrees to take one or more of the following steps.

(4) The steps are—

(a) submitting to treatment by or under the direction of a person having the necessary qualifications or experience,

(b) taking part in specified interviews, and specified assessments, at specified places and times, and

with a view to the reduction or elimination of P's dependency on, or propensity to misuse, the drug in question.

(5) The treatment may be—

(a) treatment as a resident in a specified institution or place, or

(b) treatment as a non-resident at a specified institution or place, and at specified intervals.

(6) Regulations under this paragraph may, in particular, make provision—

(a) as to the maximum period for which a person may benefit from the provision made by the regulations;

(b) about the form of voluntary rehabilitation plans (including provision as to their signing);

(d) for securing that a person who agrees to comply with a voluntary rehabilitation plan provides information, and such evidence as may be prescribed, as to compliance with the plan.

(7) 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 to whom this paragraph applies, or

(b) it is payable in respect of a joint-claim couple both members of which are persons to whom this paragraph applies.

(8) In this paragraph "specified", in relation to a voluntary rehabilitation plan, means specified in or determined in accordance with the plan.

6 (1) Regulations may make provision for or in connection with imposing on a person a requirement to comply with a mandatory rehabilitation plan.

(2) Regulations under this paragraph must include provision for securing that a person is subject to the requirement mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) at any time only if—

(a) the person has not at that time agreed to comply with a voluntary rehabilitation plan under paragraph 5A, and

(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph.

(3) For the purposes of this paragraph a "mandatory rehabilitation plan" is a document—

(a) which is provided to the person by the Secretary of State, and

(b) which contains one or more of the following requirements.

(4) The requirements are that the person—

(a) must attend an educational programme at a specified place and at specified times,

(b) must take part in specified interviews, and specified assessments, at specified places and times, and

with a view to the reduction or elimination of the person's dependency on, or propensity to misuse, the drug in question.

(5) Nothing may be specified in a mandatory rehabilitation plan which requires a person to submit to medical or surgical treatment.

(6) Regulations under this paragraph may, in particular, make provision—

(a) as to the involvement of a person in determining the particular requirements to be contained in a mandatory rehabilitation plan with which the person is to be required to comply;

(b) about the form of mandatory rehabilitation plans (including provision as to their signing);

(d) for securing that a person who is required to comply with a mandatory rehabilitation plan provides information, and such evidence as may be prescribed, as to compliance with the plan.

(7) 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 jobseeking conditions at that time.

(8) In this paragraph "specified", in relation to a mandatory rehabilitation plan, means specified in or determined in accordance with the plan."

16: Schedule 3, page 83, line 8, at end insert—

"Information

7A (1) Regulations may make provision for or in connection with authorising the supply of information, other than excluded information, held by—

(a) a police force,

(b) the probation service, or

to a person within sub-paragraph (2) for use for the purposes of any provision of this Schedule.

(2) The persons within this sub-paragraph are—

(a) the Secretary of State;

(b) a person providing services to the Secretary of State;

(3) Information supplied under the regulations may not be supplied by the recipient to any other person unless—

(a) it could be supplied to that person under the regulations;

(b) it is supplied for the purposes of any civil or criminal proceedings; or

(4) In sub-paragraph (1) "excluded information" means any information relating to or acquired as a result of—

(a) the provision of medical or surgical treatment or care, or

(b) the provision of services by a social worker,

other than information as to whether a person is having (or has had) treatment in respect of the person's use of any drug.

(5) In sub-paragraph (1) "the probation service" means—

(a) in England and Wales, a local probation board established under section 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 or a provider of probation services;

(b) in Scotland, a local authority within the meaning of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968."

17: Schedule 3, page 83, line 27, at end insert—

"(4) In paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 (treatment of information), as inserted by section 33(3) of this Act, after "this Act" insert "(other than paragraph 7A of Schedule A1)"."

18: Schedule 3, page 83, line 33, after "3" insert ", 5A"

19: Schedule 3, page 85, line 39, after "assessment" insert ", and a subsequent interview (a "drugs interview") with an approved person to discuss any matters arising out of that assessment,"

20: Schedule 3, page 86, line 21, after "assessment" insert "or a drugs interview"

21: Schedule 3, page 86, line 23, after "assessment" insert "or drugs interview"

22: Schedule 3, page 86, line 24, at end insert—

"(4A) Regulations under this paragraph may, in particular, make provision for a requirement imposed on a person ("P") under this paragraph to cease to have effect if—

(a) P agrees to provide a sample, in accordance with instructions given by an approved person, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is or has been any drug in P's body, and

(b) the sample provided indicates that no drug is or has been in P's body."

23: Schedule 3, page 88, leave out lines 1 to 26

24: Schedule 3, page 88, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 43 on page 89 and insert—

"Voluntary and mandatory rehabilitation plans

5A (1) Regulations may make provision for or in connection with securing that a person ("P") who at any time complies with a voluntary rehabilitation plan is not required at that time—

(a) to take part in a work-focused interview under section 12(1), or

(b) to undertake work-related activity under section 13(1).

(2) Regulations under this paragraph may include provision for P not to be required to do the things mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that—

(a) P is dependent on, or has a propensity to misuse, any drug, and

(b) P's dependency or propensity is a factor affecting P's prospects of obtaining or remaining in work.

(3) For the purposes of this paragraph a "voluntary rehabilitation plan" is an agreement entered into by the Secretary of State and P under which P agrees to take one or more of the following steps.

(4) The steps are—

(a) submitting to treatment by or under the direction of a person having the necessary qualifications or experience,

(b) taking part in specified interviews, and specified assessments, at specified places and times, and

with a view to the reduction or elimination of P's dependency on, or propensity to misuse, the drug in question.

(5) The treatment may be—

(a) treatment as a resident in a specified institution or place, or

(b) treatment as a non-resident at a specified institution or place, and at specified intervals.

(6) Regulations under this paragraph may, in particular, make provision—

(a) as to the maximum period for which a person may benefit from the provision made by the regulations;

(b) about the form of voluntary rehabilitation plans (including provision as to their signing);

(d) for securing that a person who agrees to comply with a voluntary rehabilitation plan provides information, and such evidence as may be prescribed, as to compliance with the plan.

(7) An employment and support allowance may also be known as a "treatment allowance" at any time when it is payable to a person to whom this paragraph applies.

(8) In this paragraph "specified", in relation to a voluntary rehabilitation plan, means specified in or determined in accordance with the plan.

6 (1) Regulations may make provision for or in connection with imposing on a person a requirement to comply with a mandatory rehabilitation plan as a condition of continuing to be entitled to the full amount payable to the person in respect of an employment and support allowance apart from the regulations.