I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I agree entirely with the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, said. We welcome these proposals, provided that they are effective, because this is the right way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, agrees with that. We have tried to make the best of it because, once these provisions leave this House, that is it. We want to be sure that those who will be subject to drinking banning orders get the best out of the courses if they are offered them.
We should look again at issues such as the level of fees. The Minister was very helpful in giving an indication of the range; as he said, it has to depend upon the length of time. But there is also a concern that a category of people should not be excluded. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred earlier to rough sleepers, and I would not wish to see people in a category such as that automatically excluded from being able to benefit from such an approved course. We need to think about that constructively.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that I have no intention of moving any amendment proposing that only not-for-profit organisations should set up such courses. By golly, I would be a strange Peer on these Benches if I did that. These were probing amendments to try to tease out from the Government what we might see in the guidance.
I did not hear the Minister say that the Government had consulted other organisations about these provisions. I may have missed it. Perhaps they have not had a chance to do so. I think that it would benefit debate in this House if they did so between now and Report so that we had a broader response.
I asked in Amendment No. 39 that the Secretary of State should take into account any recommendations made by persons appointed by the Secretary of State to consider the applications to run approved courses. There is a throwaway part of the clause that refers to these people, but we hear no more about them. That is the kind of thing to which I will want to return in a constructive spirit at Report, when we will be able to consider the amendments rather more cautiously and in smaller groups.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 26 April 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Violent Crime Reduction Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
681 c181 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:53:50 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317577
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317577
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317577