I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, intended the amendment to be a precursor to our debates very shortly—perhaps not that shortly—on drug and alcohol abuse. However, I take the view that even if the amendment covers that situation, it is unintentional and she wants to stick to those people whom she mentioned. Drug abuse is obviously an important topic that we must and shall address fully. The amendment would mean that an action plan for work-related activity could not specify a requirement for the participant to do anything that would require him to take medication or treatment. It would prevent any medical treatment being required as a necessary step in completing a back-to-work progression. That is wrong. Once again we return to the action plan, which I am sure that all noble Lords are by now well aware must be agreed between the parties. That requirement precludes the kind of enforced medication which some may worry would be required.
None of us would rule out, however, the scenario in which a participant with a medical problem which hinders their return to work but is none the less treatable or even curable agrees—that is the important word—to seek medical help to overcome that problem.
Welfare Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Skelmersdale
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 22 June 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Welfare Reform Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
711 c392-3GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:26:14 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_569201
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_569201
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_569201