Violent Crime Reduction Bill

At this stage, I would like to speak to the amendments grouped with the government amendments, which I appreciate is rather complicated. I fear that I have made life very difficult for the Chairman because, in attempting to help the Bill team and the rest of the Chamber, I have tabled a significant number of amendments to the Government’s new clauses. This makes it rather difficult to follow the Marshalled List, for me as well as for everyone else. I would like to speak to Amendments Nos. 10 to 14, 38 to 41, 43 to 46, 58 and 59, 15 of which are in eight sub-groups. If the Government’s new clauses had appeared in the original draft of the Bill, we might have had the luxury of dealing with these very important matters in separate groupings. I would therefore have de-grouped them and not burdened the House with a long speech, which I now have to give to respond to the Government’s presentation of these clauses. First, I put on record the fact that I am very grateful to the Minister for trying to address some of my amendments immediately. He has managed to take away some of the information that I shall have to give, but not a lot, I have to say. He was right to say that the Government have responded helpfully to proposals advanced by my honourable friend Humfrey Malins in another place. The difficulty is that, in tabling these new amendments last Thursday, the Government have at first blush given a much wider power to the courts than my honourable friend had anticipated. I therefore tabled the amendments to try to probe the Government’s intentions very fully. The letter that was sent to me and, I suspect, to other noble Lords who spoke on Second Reading merely says that the new proposals allow courts to refer an individual to attend voluntarily an approved alcohol intervention course, the successful completion of which could lead to a reduction in the length of the drinking banning order. The letter goes on to say that the Government believe that this will complement the drinking banning order arrangements by addressing an individual’s behaviour as well as imposing prohibitions on them. That rather limited explanation is the reason why I felt I had to table a series of amendments to give the Bill team at least the hope of trying to work out where my objections might lie. All my amendments today are probing, and we will need to consider the Government’s further responses before deciding whether these new clauses need to be improved on Report or whether everything can satisfactorily be left to guidance, which I think will be the mainstay of the Minister’s speaking notes at all stages of the Bill, by the sound of it. We may have to help him to put guidance into the Bill before it leaves this House. Although these new clauses may well prove to be welcome, as I think they will be, we in this House are the only ones who will have the luxury of time to debate them properly. When they go to another place they will form part of the whole group of Lords amendments, and we know that the time allocated for consideration of Lords amendments is notoriously inadequate. That is my apology for taking some time on them today. Have the Government consulted Alcohol Concern or any other related organisation on the specific drafting of these new clauses, and if so, with what results? As soon as I saw the amendments, I telephoned Alcohol Concern and although, understandably, staff were on leave at last week, I want to put on record my heartfelt thanks to Helen Symons at Alcohol Concern for turning around a response this week. Broadly speaking, she said that Alcohol Concern very much welcomes the fact that the Government have responded to the argument that the punitive action of the DBOs needs to go hand-in-hand with proactive measures to change the way people drink if it is to be truly effective. She has given a list of very pertinent questions. I have tried to incorporate them into my list of questions on the relevant amendments. As this is a late submission by Helen Symons, I was able to look at them only at two o’clock today, so I have not been able to give advance notice of the questions to the Minister. However, having gone through them today, I shall be happy to provide the e-mail to his Bill team later on. My first subgroup of amendments comprises Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12. It probes the purpose of the approved course that is to be specified in the order. The amendments severally describe the approved courses as promoting rehabilitation, alcohol awareness and anger management. Amendment No. 10, which triggered all this off, is the one that was tabled by my honourable friend Humfrey Malins in another place. I do not intend to go into the detail of what those three objectives might achieve—I think the Minister has addressed that. He has said why he does not think it is right to put the detail of that in the clause itself. My questions relate to why the Government have overcome their initial objection. On 13 October, the Government rejected the proposal of my honourable friend Humfrey Malins on the basis that DBOs are civil orders and not criminal penalties. Hazel Blears stated:"““When there is a conviction, it is . . . open to the court to direct a mandatory course of action involving rehabilitation, education, drug support and drink support””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 13/10/05; col. 22.]" She quite rightly pointed out that human rights issues are involved and that it would be wrong to force people to take up treatment if they do not wish to do so in the absence of a criminal penalty. She said, of course, that she would take it away for consideration and today we have the result. This means that the Government have to address the question of why they are now sure that these proposals do not offend against the human rights issues referred to by Hazel Blears. I am glad that the Government think they do not offend, but I think that we and, in future, the courts need to be reassured that they do not offend human rights issues. Of course, I appreciate that the Government’s proposals have the advantage of not, strictly speaking, forcing an individual to go on an approved course; they ask an individual to agree to that. However, offering a discount is such an inducement that it will be very difficult for someone to say, ““No””. If people are being offered a reduction in the period of a DBO if they take up a course and complete it satisfactorily, I need to be reassured that that does not offend against the principles that governed the Minister in the other place saying that this was not a way forward. My second subgroup comprises Amendment No. 13, which relates to the Government publicising this in an accessible format. The Minister says that this is already covered because they will put out the information about the DBOs in plain language and that that covers it. However, Amendment No. 9 says that the court must provide the information ““whether in writing or otherwise””. I would like to know what the ““or otherwise”” conveys. It might mean that it could be in Braille, Easyread or in some format that was accessible to someone who could not necessarily read it; it could be translated into another language. I do not think ““plain language”” covers it. I just want to be reassured about what ““or otherwise”” might convey. The third subgroup comprises Amendment No. 14. This would require the court to give a warning about the possible consequences of a failure to complete the course. The Minister says, ““Let us leave that to the court to decide””. I had in mind a situation where a court currently imposes a community penalty. The court is required to give guidance to a person before it on what will happen to them if they do not complete the course. It might be helpful for courts to be advised that this is good practice and that as a matter of course they should give guidance about the possible consequences of failing to complete.That might make a person more ready to let the people running the course know as soon as possible if they were unable to attend on a particular day for a good reason—it might be to attend the funeral of a close relative or to attend a job interview. I want to get that good practice into the system. We keep being told that we should not worry as it will be in the guidance, but we are not seeing the guidance. That is why I need to be persistent—nay awkward and difficult—and to keep asking the questions today. I now move on to the amendments that affect the Government’s new clause on approved courses. The next subgroup—Amendments Nos. 38 and 40—probes the nature of the organisations or persons that the Government expect to license the approved courses. The Government say they do not want to restrict the kind of persons or organisations who could run this. But—and I welcome his statement here—the Minister said that they need the right experience. That is absolutely right. Alcohol Concern points out that it is crucial that whoever runs the course is properly trained in delivering alcohol interventions. Are the Government really intending that these courses will be delivered only by social services and probation services? Can they give an assurance that other relevant organisations—charities and people with real experience in this field—would be favourably considered as organisations qualified to run these approved courses? The fifth subgroup is covered by Amendments Nos. 39 and 41. These are the old-fashioned ““may/shall”” amendments and are intended to probe the nature of the regulations made by the Secretary of State in relation to the approval of courses that may be undertaken. Amendment No. 39 would require the Secretary of State to take into account any recommendations made by persons appointed by the Secretary of State to consider applications to run approved courses. Amendment No. 39 has been tabled because I want to know who will be processing these applications to run courses. Will it be Home Office civil servants? Will it be an independent body appointed by the Secretary of State to process the applications? Will it be in-house or out of house? Will it be in-house, with a specifically nominated group of civil servants who would have expertise, or will it be out of house, with an independent body of persons appointed with long experience in these matters? Alcohol Concern says:"““We would like to seek assurances that the Secretary of State will consult with experts in the field before approving the content of any courses, and that the focus of the course will be changing behaviour, not just raising awareness””." It continues:"““It is important that the course is linked in with the Department of Health’s focus on screening and brief interventions to ensure that everyone who comes through the course is referred on to appropriate treatment if necessary””." That seems to be very wise advice. Amendment No. 41 requires the Secretary of State to include in the regulations the matters set out in subsection (5). The provisions to be covered in the regulations are significant and it would be unthinkable if the Secretary of State were not to include them in the regulations. This ““may/shall”” amendment is simply there to probe the details behind the matters listed in subsection (5). Paragraph (a) is a provision for the making of applications for approval. Does this mean prescribing the administration of processing applications? There are good management issues here, such as the time to process the applications and the reasons to be given if the Secretary of State refuses an application. Is that what the Government intend to be covered? Subsection (5)(b) covers the provisions on the payment of fees. Do the Government expect different charges to be set in different parts of the country, and for the charges to differ depending on the nature of the organisation running the course? What happens if a person elects to go on a course when they are financially able to take on the payments, but then loses their job or faces some other financial crisis and no longer can afford to pay? What impact would that have on the provisions in the new clause about certificates on completion of approved courses? If someone cannot complete their attendance, they will get neither the certificate nor the discount on the period of the DBN. Subsection (5)(d) covers monitoring the running of these courses and closing them down if it all goes wrong. Who will carry out the monitoring? Is it to be the Home Office, the local authority or some other body? To quote Alcohol Concern again, it says:"““It is crucial that the courses are properly evaluated for numbers of people taking them up, changes in behaviour and reductions in reoffending rates””." The sixth group covers Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that he agrees that a person should not suffer if a course is cancelled because of problems encountered by the supplier. He said that it is an unlikely scenario and that it has never happened without notice. I shall not go further because the noble Lord has said that this will be left to guidance. In those circumstances, he has given as full an answer as I can expect. In the seventh group, Amendment No. 46 seeks to delete paragraph (c). Again, the noble Lord has covered the point. The final group covers the government amendments to Clause 11. The purpose of my Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 is to make the order-making power applying to the Government’s new clause subject to the affirmative procedure. Of course the Opposition always prefer the affirmative process where it is responsible to seek it because another place then has at least a chance of proper time being allocated for debate. This House has more opportunities to pray against negative resolutions, certainly more so than the other place. The noble Lord has said, ““Don’t worry about it. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has already considered this and given it a clean bill of health. We do not need the affirmative resolution procedure””. While of course the committee has looked at the other clauses, I am not aware that it has had a chance to consider these new provisions. If the noble Lord tells me that it has already done so and I have missed the report that will have been produced since the publication of these clauses last Thursday, I accept that and will have someone scurry along to the Printed Paper Office to collect it. However, I do not think that the Select Committee has yet had an opportunity to look at these specific clauses. That is the reason for tabling Amendments Nos. 58 and 59. These are welcome, interesting and certainly significant new clauses and it may be that, at least in the first instance, the affirmative procedure should be applied to the regulations governing them. If that system were applied to the first set, it might then be perfectly proper for the negative resolution procedure to apply thereafter. Having wearied all noble Lords present, I hope that I have at least raised some pertinent questions.