Clause 9
Welfare Reform Bill
5:30 pm
John Baron (Whip, Whips; Billericay, Conservative)
I would like to raise a few concerns about the clause. On the face of it, the proposal is attractive, because it is not a welcome thought that our taxes and welfare system are subsidising a life of addiction and perhaps even crime. However, serious questions must be asked, and I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean about whether the capacity is in place to support the proposals, and whether such an approach in itself will be ultimately successful.
On capacity, we heard from our evidence sessions that more than 200,000 drug addicts are currently in treatment, and the capacity just about keeps pace with that demand. These figures are easy to bandy around, so I shall ask the Minister to clarify them if not now then later. We also heard, however, that about 100,000 addicts currently draw benefits but are not in treatment. It is difficult to believe that the existing services will cope with such a big increase in demand without a big increase in resources. When the chief executive of DrugScope was questioned, he clearly made the point that it would be “extremely difficult” for the system to cope with any extra demand without an increase in resources. What estimate has the Minister or his Department made of how many extra drug addicts will require treatment as a result of the proposals? What will be the cost of that extra provision? And, where will the resources come from? I do not see any additional resources tagged on to the Bill. I am sure that the Minister is fully aware that it is all right putting such proposals in place, but that, if we do not create the capacity to deal with the envisaged increase in demand, the proposals will be almost worthless.
On the question of whether the general approach will be successful, all the evidence suggests that addicts will make progress with treatment only once they have resolved in their own mind to do so. Some addicts persist with their habit, despite it costing them their job, health, home or even their partner and their children, and despite the pain that that subsequently causes. The question that we as a Committee must ask ourselves is, are those people seriously going to take advice from, or respond to, a nice lady—[Interruption]—or gentleman sitting behind a jobcentre desk asking them to go for treatment? I have met many nice people in jobcentre offices, and they can be very tenacious, determined and gritty while being compassionate. However, they have only certain powers of persuasion, and when addicts have caused so much pain to themselves and, perhaps, others, and gone to such lengths to pursue their habit, one must question whether the policy will succeed. Indeed, the chief executive of DrugScope has said:
“There is no evidence that using benefit sanctions to compel problem drug users into treatment will be effective. Withdrawing benefits could perversely drive some people further away from the support they need, potentially impacting upon their families and wider communities”.
I suggest to the Minister that if people are forced into treatment that proves wholly ineffective, it at best wastes valuable time and resources and, at worst, delays the moment when they finally get serious about giving up or about re-entering work. Perhaps worse than that, such an approach risks diverting scarce and valuable resources from those who are more serious about giving up their habit. What evidence does the Minister have to suggest otherwise—that using benefit sanctions to force addicts into treatment will be effective? And, what measures will he put in place to ensure that resources are not diverted from where they are most needed and from people who genuinely want to give up their habit? I look forward to hearing his responses to those questions.