Benefitsnow Blog Page

This blog doesn't have a direct relevance to people with disabilities but it is a further indication of the Government's approach to welfare benefits. The Department of Work and Pensions has asked the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) to consider proposals which would require Jobseeker's Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance claimants (except for those in the ESA support group) to answer questions about their drug use and to take steps to reduce or eliminate this.

The Explanatory Memorandum sent to the SSAC sets out a number of points relating to the scale of the drug problem in England:

• class A drug use costs an estimated £15.3 billion in "associated crime and health costs";
• in 2005/06 it was estimated that just under 270,000 'problem' drug users were also in receipt of out of work benefits;
• between a third and a half of burglaries robberies and thefts are estimated to be drug-related;
• about half of prisoners report using heroin or crack cocaine in the year before entering prison;
• about 80,000 people a year in England test positive for opiates or cocaine on arrest.

Nobody would argue that hard drug use is a long-standing and serious problem in this country, nor would there be much objection to the greater provision of effective treatment for hard drug users. These are fairly self-evident, the real question is whether or not coercion should be used. The plan is to require problem drug users to:

• answer questions about their drug use;
• attend a substance related assessment;
• attend a series of mandatory drug tests;
• comply with the conditions of a mandatory rehabilitation programme.

Regardless of the obvious human rights issues, the obvious problem is identifying claimants as problem drug users in the first place. The DWP has recognised this and has put forward a list of characteristics which may indicate drug use:

• failure to sign on at the correct time;
• having been sanctioned for missed appointments;
• a high volume of crisis loan applications;
• incoherent answers to questions;
• unkempt appearance / hygiene issues;
• signs of injecting / infection;
• disorientation / poor mental functioning;
• general drowsiness.

So, if you are displaying any of the above, you stand a reasonable chance of falling victim to this new regime. They don't seem to have worked out that these indicators may be explained by other factors (alcoholism, mental health problems, learning difficulties, the effects of prescribed medication).

If a personal adviser considers that a claimant is a problem drug user and is not already on a treatment programme then the claimant will be required to attend a substance related assessment (SRA). Failure to comply with this requirement will result in a sanction. If a suspected problem drug user refuses to attend an SRA then they will be required to undergo a drugs test before the sanction comes into force. If the assessment confirms that the person is a problem drug user then he or she will be required to comply with a mandatory rehabilitation plan which will require the claimant to attend a treatment awareness programme. This programme is designed to 'encourage and motivate problem drug users who refuse to engage in structured treatment'. The programme will:

• providing a rolling psycho-educational/motivational work group;
• motivate the group to engage in structured treatment;
• develop a flexible structure in order to provide 1 to 1 sessions where referral volumes do not constitute a group, or where individuals request it on an exceptional basis.

Regular readers will know that I am against the use of sanctions in the benefits system because they introduce an element of coercion to a process which should be a basic right. This proposal extends the sanctions regime far beyond job seeking activities into areas of health and the criminal justice system. Drug use is a widespread social problem with many dimensions but I don't think it is fair or reasonable to tie unemployment benefit to a person's health condition. There is a very complex relationship between heroin use and mental health problems, many people with various forms of psychoses self-medicate with opiates as a way of relieving their symptoms. So-called drug treatment often involves substituting dependency on an illegal drug (heroin) with dependency on a legal drug (methadone).

I'm not disputing the link between drug use and criminality but I don't see how stopping drug users' benefits improves the situation. If your benefit is stopped then you are surely much more likely to indulge in criminal behaviour to feed your habit. I also note that these regulations do not apply to problem drinkers who are responsible for far more offences in England than drug users and whose treatment by the NHS is a massive burden on the taxpayer. So, is drug use being targeted because it's a relatively minority pastime whereas most of us consume some sort of alcohol on a regular basis.

So, this measure discriminates against drug users, gives personal advisers the power to make health-related requirements when they aren't qualified to do so and infringes the basic right that we all have as adults to accept or refuse treatment for our condition. I also have to ask which is the next group of people to be victimised this way? Are we really getting to the stage where our benefit will be stopped if we forget to take our medication? The consultation period closes on April 12th, it's really important that those who feel as outraged as I do about this draconian measure should respond.

John Armstrong. Benefitsnow Ltd. March 18th 2009.