When a new announcement isn't really new
Some will question the timing of today's government announcement on plans to get tough with jobless alcoholics who refuse treatment while claiming benefits.
Firstly, as a ministerial aide admitted to me this afternoon, the plan is not new - it was just "not noticed" when included in the Welfare Reform Bill earlier this year. "We kept it quiet", he explained, "so we could make a formal announcement later".
Here is the reference in the bill:
So what exactly is today's hot news? I put that question to the press office at the Department of Work and Pensions. They said this in an email response:
"what's new today is that we are saying for the first time that we will explicitly explore the alcohol route and look to mirror the system we are introducing for drug addicts
"does this make sense?"
Well, I don't know if it does "make sense". Exploring the alcohol route is hardly a significant policy shift - after all a consultation paper issued in January [173Kb PDF] included a table of the different kinds of "work-related activity" that ministers might insist jobless claimants undertake or face sanctions.
There in the second box is "alcohol rehabilitation" - clearly, the exploration had already begun.
And the Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell expressed his enthusiasm for the idea of targeting alcoholics when he said this in the Commons last December:
"We are prepared to look at including alcoholics (in the legislation), but it is harder to identify people who have alcohol problems. If [Ian Davidson] has any suggestions on how to do that, we would be happy to look at them. We offer specific help to people who self-identify, but if there are better ways of doing that, we will be happy to look into them."
Here is the nub of the problem - the government would like to prove itself tough on irresponsible alcoholics claiming benefits, but has not worked out how to do this.
With drugs, it is simpler: test positive for an illegal substance and the government can insist that you go into treatment. But having alcohol in your bloodstream is not an offence; nor is evidence that one has a drink problem.
So, today's press release reveals that "the government will commission new research, along with an internal review" in the hope that it will come up with a better solution than the current one: that is, simply to ask the claimant if he or she is an alcoholic.
Knowing that answering "yes" would force you to give up beer or deprive you of your beer money, even the most feckless drinker is likely to postpone any such announcement. (Rather like the government on welfare reform.)
There will inevitably be some who suspect that the choice of today to re-announce relatively flimsy plans for jobless alcoholics is designed to distract the media from the embarrassment of the e-mails scandal.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~21~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
When you write about schemes like this, you seem to accept that the objective is to assist drug addicts, alcoholics, the most deprived in our society etc. I don't think that's it at all, I think government funded initiatives run apparently for those most in need are actually job creation schemes for the better off. I think this will get worse under the Tories because they have a completely naive belief that the voluntary sector given money will channel it not into their own pockets but to help those most in need.
Complain about this comment
Child care options and children s centers ..... don't make me laugh the last of those sort of places closed by us very recently. Or is the government talking about providing funding for such things along with all the extra funding that will be needed to attain the required results.
Complain about this comment
So how do you get tough with an alcoholic?
If they do reduce their benefits what happens next?
An increase in theft?
They starve to death in the streets?
These people need treatment but are the last to recognise this
I know I was married to an alcoholic for 24 years
They are among the most vulnerable in society suffering from mental illness
If given money they spend it on drink so do they need food vouchers instead?
Complain about this comment
'claimants dependent on drugs etc.' et cetera? what gambling, sex and shopping as well as cannabis, alcohol and heroin, where do we get these clowns from. This and the cons future gov will just compound the issue of substance abuse. yet another reason to legalise drugs, if people are going to take substances like alcohol why doesn't the Gov do us a favour and put some safer legal alternatives to alcohol on the market, there's a whole list of them on the MoDa 71, cannabis, ecstasy et cetera.
Complain about this comment
WILL THERE BE A SPECIAL SCHEME FOR EX GOVERNMENT ADVISORS WHO SPEND THEIR DAYS DREAMING UP VICIOUS RUBBISH TO EMAIL TO THEIR COLLEAGUES??
ALCOHOLISM IS AN ILLNESS WHICH OF COURSE I WOULD NEVER WISH ON ANYBODY.
BUT WHAT WILL THEY ALL DO WHEN GORDY CURES THEM ALL?
JOIN THE GROWING THRONG OF THE JOBLESS CREATED BY NULABOUR!!
Complain about this comment
Quote: "With drugs, it is simpler: test positive for an illegal substance and the government can insist that you go into treatment."
Er ... just because one tests positive for a drug does not mean one is addicted to that drug.
Complain about this comment
the "biggest" problem with alcohol is its definition: it is the only habit-forming substance in the OED which has not got the word drug in its definiton, leading to the non-sensical usage "drugs and alcohol".
Complain about this comment
Mark,
please continue holding the government to account. You seem to be standing alone, and your blog is the one reason I keep coming back to the BBC. For which I pay.
And yes, it rather does smack of a re-announcement. What's the betting "we're focusing on the real problems at hand, giving real help to people [so forget about any harmless jovial email tittle-tattle about some opposition MP]"...?
Complain about this comment
Alcohol (or any other drug for that matter) is not in itself a problem- it is the behaviours that can sometimes come along with its misuse that are a problem for society. By all means penalise job seekers for their behaviours (failure to keep appointments, inability to treat job centre staff with respect, being drunk on the job) but not for use of what is actually a legal substance.
Complain about this comment
We have a large number of people suffering the effects of long term unemployment, failed job creation schemes, derisory training provision and advice from 'job advisors' (who couldnt find a real job themselves if it kicked them in the backside).
Having ended up succumbing to depression or anxiety disorders, they then find that what laughably passes for care in the community mental health provision is of negligible use, oversubscribed and with waiting lists of upto a year if they're lucky.
If you wanted to force people into self medication thru alchohol abuse, you couldn't have come up with a better method.
And now those self-same complacent ministers who have presided over this want the victims of their useless policies to magically jump up and cure themselves?
Removing their alchohol dependence is merely unpeeling the first layer of a very large onion. Unless the govt are willing to invest the cash to deal with their underlying problems they'll simply put people who have learned to cope (however badly) through extreme hardship for no meaningful gain other than the chance of a soundbite.
Shameful
Complain about this comment
Mark your background research into the Government's policy is admirable, but you don't mention who was putting out stories this month about how much "unemployed alcoholics were getting from the taxpayer......" to which this is clearly a response. Of course some of the commentators here appear not to want to help unemployed people get back into work because it is advantages politically to demonise the unemployed and maximise unemployment. Of course the merit of penalising people to encourage them to take treatment it worth a debate.
Complain about this comment
This is another headline grabbing announcement from a dysfunctional Government Minister that will come to nothing. There are already many assisted programs out there to help these unfortunately damaged people. Alcoholism is a debilitating disease that also impacts severly on the family and has far reaching mental consequences. Better to strengthen existing schemes than try and rehabilitate, than to make false political claims. Does he really think his 'stick routine' will work? This is typical of ambitious Purnell to try and make political capital from the less fortunate. The public can see through his obfuscation.
Complain about this comment
Who's going to decide whether the claimant is an alcoholic or not? Is every claimant going to be assessed by a doctor or is the government just going to issue an arbitrary limit for units per week?
Given that "binge drinking" is defined as drinking more than 4 pints in one session, I can foresee a sudden rise in the number of "alcoholics" every time the government needs to shave a few million from the budget.
Complain about this comment
The Bill seems to be quite clear on the matter. It only affects a claimant if he or she cannot seek work, or if their search is hampered because of their dependence on alcohol or drugs. The debate about how you define or categorise addiction doesn't matter. I don't consider myself an alcoholic, but if I am unemployed and miss an interview because I'm hung over or in the pub, then my benefits would be cut as a punishment. Help for addiction should be made available of course, but you cannot force anyone to take it, any more than you can force them to admit to their dependency, if they have one. If it becomes obvious that they do have a problem but don't recognise it or admit it, then some form of treatment, with financial penalties if they don't go, is the only answer short of dragging them off to rehab!
On a wider point, let's not fall into the habit of automatically rubbishing or tearing apart every single policy or suggestion, just because it's made by Labour and we don't like them. There is too much negativity in journalism. When did you last see an article praising the work of our politicians and policy makers? They aren't all completely brainless and clueless or they surely wouldn't have got to where they are. Sometimes they do have good ideas. Any chance of a positive thread actually praising a decision or policy? Somehow I doubt it.
Complain about this comment
OK - let's get one thing straight, regarldless of whether this policy is sensible or plain stupid, the reason our wonderful government has announced it today is to try to deflect attention from the smear campaign that our prudent opposition has been parading in the public eye
Complain about this comment
Sorry Mark, I agree with the core of what you are saying on the alcohol announcement, but not the emails.
I think the only people who need to be seriously embarrassed about the emails are the media. Millions unemployed, serious events all round the world and all you guys can think of to put at the top of the news is a few childish emails written by someone I've never heard of.
Let's have some coverage of the issues that impact on real people, not nonsense like that.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk #16.
"Millions unemployed, serious events all round the world and all you guys can think of to put at the top of the news is a few childish emails written by someone I've never heard of.
Let's have some coverage of the issues that impact on real people, not nonsense like that."
given that these "childish emails" demonstrate the caliber and character of the people in government, I think it is very naive to deny "impact on real people".
Complain about this comment
Do you think there is any serious intention of actually attempting to implement what is a totally unworkable policy designed to take attention away from the failings of the government rather than as a reform of benefits. The whole benefits system needs to be overhauled, with meaningful cuts in the amounts payable.Those who have never worked and show no inclination to work should be given only a subsistence payment, with the money saved going to those people who have been in the habit of working but have now lost their jobs.Cash spent on the long term unemployed must be cut back and used to retrain the people who have just lost their jobs but obviously intend to work. They need help, not the idle scroungers who have never had a job since they left school.
Complain about this comment
Why not insist that all non-essential purchases (alcohol, cigarettes, designer clothing, junk food, computers, TV sets, mobile phones &c.) be restricted to persons in full-time employment? Identity cards could easily include details of a person's employment status, and shops could be required to check this at the time of sale.
Or even go all the way: abolish state benefits altogether, and house the unemployed in specially-built, gender-segregated accommodation; where they would be unable to obtain drugs, alcohol or tobacco, and where a regime of healthy food, exercise and employment training would be offered.
It's easy to start thinking that way when you've got money. As savage Garden said: "I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair, I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires."
Complain about this comment
Present company excluded (which for once I actually mean),
Doesn't this show how the standards of journalism have fallen in recent years.
In the bleary twilight of my youth journalists would have read through the original report and written about all the finer details exposing items like this alcholism clause when they found them.
Now most media outlets just report on the press releases given to them by Labour / Tory HQ. Without any background reading, fact checking or independant thought.
6 months ago a songwriter died, a lot of newspapers (including the traditional broadsheets) wrote his bio including that he composed a song for S club 7, which he hadn't it was just some false 'fact' someone had inserted into his wikipedia blog which had just been copied and pasted without checking by the journalists.
Complain about this comment
The main point that has been missed here is that an alcoholic is clearly incapable of work and therefore Jobseekers Allowance would not be available and he would be paid Incapacity Benefit. Yet another example of sham legislation, lets pretend to do something ethos of the policy makers and advisors who decide how it works without knowing how it works.
Complain about this comment
#19 I assume you're being ironic:
"house the unemployed in specially-built, gender-segregated accommodation; where they would be unable to obtain drugs, alcohol or tobacco, and where a regime of healthy food, exercise and employment training would be offered."
Apart from the healthy food, and the minimal exercise and employment training, we already have such accomodation. It's called prison (except that they can obtain tobacco - and in practice other drugs - in prison).
Complain about this comment
In principle I am in favour of the proposed legislation. No one should be entitled to benefits without making SOME contribution to the good of a community at large.
Whether it is an offence to drink alcohol to excess or not is irrelevant to the argument. If a person does not make a positive effort to stay in a suitable condition to work on that evening or the next day, then there should be zero benefit
Complain about this comment
@ badgercourage, #22:
Yes, I was being ironic. However, I am sure I could drum up a good deal of support in practice for such ideas.
Complain about this comment
Same problem as with the charities. Socialist thinking trying to untie the knots created by socialism.
Benefits to physically capable people should be cut to such a low level that being on benefit would be a last resort, never a choice. Food vouchers and house sharing are good ideas. If an alcohol problem is detected, make benefits dependent on the person regularly taking disulfiram tablets in the presence of a nurse.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
When a new announcement isn't really new
When the media and the government announced it in a "PAPER" released by the government....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS