Welfare Reform Bill

I thank every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate. It has been very productive and there is clear consensus of concern about Clause 9 as drafted. I suggest that we have a meeting with the Minister about the training institute, but also about a number of concerns that remain unresolved here. I shall mention just a few of them, so that he can think about them before we meet, if we do. The Minister did not explain how the personal adviser can measure at all the question of propensity. I think that there will be a major problem with medical staff. I cannot imagine medical staff getting involved in what I think they would see as compulsory treatment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, made clear. That question remains up in the air. Frankly, compulsory treatment is compulsory treatment even if the specifics of that treatment are not spelt out by the personal adviser. If you have to attend some form of treatment, that is compulsory. There are human rights issues, there are certainly ethical issues and there are certainly issues cutting across the Mental Health Act. One cannot get away from the fact that compulsory attendance at a residential place of treatment is compulsory treatment of some sort. As I heard it, the Turning Point view appears to go along with the idea of compulsory attendance for an assessment, rather along the lines of one of our amendments. I heard nothing in that quotation about Turning Point supporting compulsory treatment. I cannot believe that it would. Resources will be an issue. That is another matter that the Minister needs to consider further.