Violent Crime Reduction Bill

As ever, the noble Baroness has been persuasive and assiduous in her contribution and I am grateful to her for the constructive way in which she has approached the amendments. If I am unable or I fail to address all the issues she has raised, I apologise in advance and will undertake to cover them between now and Report stage. They may even be picked up during a future sitting of the Committee. The first point rightly referred to was the human rights question. The noble Baroness answered herself in part. The reason why these provisions do not offend against human rights concerns is that they are voluntary in nature. It is the case that the person potentially affected by a referral to one of these courses decides for himself. In the end, it is up to him. Yes, the person may get a discount—but that does not undermine ultimately the voluntary nature of the arrangement. Yes, it is an incentive—I make no apology for it being anything other than that. The noble Baroness will recognise that it is a very valuable incentive to have. The noble Baroness asked about the meaning of the term ““in writing or otherwise””. Again she has anticipated my answer. She is right that ““otherwise”” would include Braille and audiotape as ways and means of communication. In some circumstances, where a person is challenged as to his ability to read, the instructions may be given orally so that he is able to understand them. The noble Baroness asked who were likely to be the providers of courses. We have made it clear that we do not want to restrict the provision of courses simply to not-for-profit organisations; some commercial concerns may well provide courses which are fit for purpose. Like any other such organisations, they will have to have trained staff with the relevant experience. Our experience of the drink/drive intervention courses suggests that organisations that might be interested in providing courses would include social services, probation services, voluntary alcohol advisory services falling within a statutory remit, primary care trusts and other relevant public and private sector organisations. Where appropriate, we would hope to build on the existing infrastructure of providers of the drink/drive intervention courses, which have proved to be very successful. We have been grateful in the past to Alcohol Concern and other organisations for their help and support in ensuring that we approach these courses and their construct in a practical way. Amendment No. 39 relates to the kind of conditions that might apply to a course. It is the case that the Secretary of State will be able to approve a course, subject to specific conditions. Any conditions would apply on a case-by-case basis and would obviously depend on how course providers plan to run the courses. Such conditions may well relate to the content and operation of the courses, including how long the course will last and over what particular time period. The noble Baroness made a very important point about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. She is right to say that we have not yet had the opportunity to clear or receive its recommendations on the new clauses, but we are optimistic that we will. We will need to keep the noble Baroness and others involved in the debate informed as to that clearance. We expect that to be the case but, if it is not, we shall need to look at the matter again. We need to be very careful to ensure that that is the case. I think that that deals for the most part with the questions raised by the noble Baroness. Many of the issues that have arisen will be deliberated over and considered during the construction of the guidance notes. In particular, we will have to consider the level of the fees to be charged and their impact on individuals and their changing circumstances. It is perhaps worth saying that we expect that the fees that individuals will have to pay to the course provider are unlikely to be below £30 or in excess of £300 per course. That is based on the experience of the work that has been undertaken with those who have been going through courses as part of the drink-driving referrals. Obviously the level of fee would depend on the length of the course. It is likely that for short drinking banning orders the courses will also be short, whereas for longer drinking banning orders the course would need to be longer, so it will be tailored to the individual concerned and the length of the order. The cost of administering the courses would be covered by the fees. Our experience suggests that the range of fees for the drink-drive intervention courses runs from about £50 up to about £250, so the fees in this case are likely to be broadly comparable. There is not much more that I can say about course providers. The Secretary of State will establish criteria for the consideration of course content. Course providers will be able to apply to the Secretary of State to run a course and it will then be for the Secretary of State to decide whether the course is appropriate or not. Regulations will set out the approval basis for courses. They will include provision for the making of applications for course approval; payment of fees and the amounts prescribed with regard to applications for approval and the giving of approval, or both; the maximum fees that an individual may pay for a course and when fees have to be paid; the monitoring of courses and of those people providing the courses; and details about withdrawing approved courses and making information available about courses and those persons providing courses. Those things will be set out very carefully in regulations, which means that we will have the opportunity to give those matters consideration when they come before your Lordships’ House. I hope that that answers the general points raised by the noble Baroness on that range of issues. Unless I have missed anything, I am happy to leave it there. I am also happy to discuss with the noble Baroness outside the Committee points of concern relating to the detailed operation of the scheme.