Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for her comments on the research point that I raised and which was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. It is tempting for governments to try to find headline figures that make them look as though they are being tough. That happens with governments of all hues. The difficulty is to ensure that one justifies that. That is why I asked about research.

I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said with regard to the availability of programmes. When I meted out

8 Oct 2003 : Column 409

sentences it was very difficult to make provision for anything like 240 hours of service, even if that was appropriate—and it was rarely appropriate. It was difficult to find a programme that was suitable and available. It is not necessarily just the easy answer to say, "Gosh, we'll look more tough if we have 300 hours". I appreciate the Minister's offer to look at how we might be provided with some information and research about the reason why.

I was intrigued by the part of the noble Baroness's explanation in which she said that the provision would bring us in line with Scottish legislation. My goodness! A number of times, I have tabled amendments to ask why we are different from Scotland, and the response from her and other members of the Government has been that one of the joys of devolution is to have differences. Hey presto—the Government accept that sometimes we have to be the same. She will find that I table a few more amendments of that sort in future.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Simply because we do not have to be the same does not mean that that we cannot learn from others. I am very happy to learn from Scotland from time to time, as my name demonstrates.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am prepared to learn as well from Scots, although they are rather distant relatives. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 190 shall stand part of the Bill?

Viscount Colville of Culross: I have not given the noble Baroness any notice of my question and I apologise, because she may not know the answer. I was looking at relevant orders under Clause 187. Now that we have got to Clause 190, one ingredient of a relevant order is an unpaid work requirement. It is my recollection—I may be completely out of date—that when one imposed a community service order, one could do it only with the consent of the defendant, otherwise one was sentencing him to what constitutes slavery, which is in contravention of our international obligations and the European convention. Will it still be necessary to require consent for unpaid work requirements under the Bill?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think that it is. I shall certainly write in confirmation, particularly if I am wrong, but I believe that unpaid work is something to which the defendant would have to agree, primarily because if one does not get his assent there may be alternatives. I shall definitely have to write once I know the precise position, because I do not know whether no means yes or yes means no, coming from that Box.

Viscount Colville of Culross: I sympathise with the noble Baroness. I would be very glad if she would write to me, and certainly do not put her to the test tonight.

8 Oct 2003 : Column 410

Clause 190 agreed to.

Clause 191 [Obligations of person subject to unpaid work requirement]:

[Amendment No. 179C not moved.]

Clause 191 agreed to.

Clause 192 [Activity requirement]:

[Amendments Nos. 179D and 179E not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 180:

    Page 114, leave out line 22.

The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 180 and 195AZA deal with the activity requirement. There has to be a correction. The amendments ensure that community rehabilitation centres can be used for any purpose on a community sentence, not only within the supervision requirement. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 192, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 193 to 197 agreed to.

Clause 198 [Mental health treatment requirement]:

Lord Dholakia had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 181:

    Page 116, line 37, after "periods)" insert "or under the direction of a specified person having the necessary qualifications or experience"

The noble Lord said: I have some difficulty with this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, rang me last night and asked me whether I would move the amendment on his behalf. I said I had no difficulty in doing so. This group of amendments is tied up with a number of amendments in the names of the noble Lord and my noble friend Lady Walmsley. In between are a number of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe.

My difficulty is that this morning the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, was told that we would not reach this amendment today and that he would have the opportunity to move it on the next occasion in Committee. I am therefore reluctant to move it on his behalf. It would be helpful to know whether we intend to proceed at this stage and to move forward. If we are moving forward, I suggest that I do not move the amendments and that they are dealt with on Report. I should be grateful if I could be informed about the nature of business after ten o'clock.

Lord Grocott: We were hoping to conclude with the group beginning with Amendment No. 195AA. There have been brisk discussions with the usual channels, having moved on more swiftly than we thought. If the group cannot be moved by someone else, the alternative is to bring it back at Report stage.

Lord Dholakia: In that case, I suggest that the amendments are not moved.

[Amendments Nos. 181 to 185 not moved.]

8 Oct 2003 : Column 411

Clause 198 agreed to.

Clause 199 [Mental health treatment at place other than that specified in order]:

[Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 not moved.]

Clause 199 agreed to.

Clause 200 [Drug rehabilitation requirement]:

[Amendments Nos. 188 to 190C not moved.]

Clause 200 agreed to.

Clause 201 [Drug rehabilitation requirement: provision for review by court]:

[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]

Clause 201 agreed to.

Clause 202 [Periodic review of drug rehabilitation requirement]:

[Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 not moved.]

Clause 202 agreed to.

Clause 203 [Alcohol treatment requirement]:

[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]

Clause 203 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]

8 Oct 2003 : Column 412

Clause 204 agreed to.

Clause 205 [Attendance centre requirement]:

[Amendment No. 195A not moved.]

Clause 205 agreed to.

Clauses 206 to 210 agreed to.

Schedule 11 agreed to.

Clause 211 agreed to.

Clause 212 [Provision of attendance centres]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 195AZA:

    Page 125, line 22, leave out "community" and insert "relevant"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 212, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 213 and 214 agreed to.

Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

        House adjourned at one minute past ten o'clock.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page