Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am full of positive answers. In my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I should admit that I know absolutely nothing about this area—it is as well to admit it. In my former role looking after businesses, I was told that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 must be one of the most successful Acts on the statute book. It has been

5 Nov 2003 : Column 880

in place for almost 50 years without suffering the fate of many other Acts: it has not been overturned or subjected to massive amendment.

The noble Baroness put two questions to me. The landlord will be responsible for serving the letter, so there is a duty on the landlord. In response to the second point about the review, we shall organise a review audit to be done in conjunction with our property sounding board—a body we have to bounce ideas off. The exercise will not be simply one within the department; outside professionals and people working in the industry will take part. I do not doubt that, because we are transparent and believe in open government, the results of the review will be made known to the industry to ensure that it is successful.

It is true that this is the fifth order from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, representing a large process of regulatory reform running to over 40 pages. It is a substantial reform and wholly to be applauded, I believe. With those remarks, I hope that I have answered both questions in a positive fashion. The order now requires in due course the assent of the other place when it finds time to get round to it. After that, the order can take its necessary effect.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill

8.37 p.m.

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Clause 168 [Further provisions relating to intermittent custody]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 218A:

    Page 100, line 18, at end insert—

"( ) In section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 (c. 39) (prison rules), in subsection (3) for "The days" there is substituted "Subject to subsection (3A), the days" and after subsection (3) there is inserted—
"(3A) In relation to a prisoner to whom an intermittent custody order under section 165 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 relates, the only days to which subsection (3) applies are Christmas Day, Good Friday and any day which under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 is a bank holiday in England and Wales.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 218A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 220E, 220F, 220H and 220J. This is a series of what are essentially technical amendments. Amendment No. 218A excludes intermittent custody officers from the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 which prevent prisoners from being kept in at weekends if they are due to be discharged on a Saturday or a Sunday. The other four amendments in this group substitute references to a prisoner serving a sentence of intermittent custody with "an intermittent custody prisoner", a new definition that was introduced in Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5 Nov 2003 : Column 881

Schedule 11 [Breach or amendment of suspended sentence order, and effect of further conviction]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 218B:

    Page 260, line 30, leave out "requirements of the community" and insert "community requirements of the suspended sentence"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 218C:

    Page 260, line 36, after second "the" insert "community"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 209A. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am not quite clear on the explanation of the need to insert the word "community" here. Would the Minister explain that?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Amendment No. 218C, to which the noble Lord refers, is a drafting correction. That is its sole purpose. I do not know whether the noble Lord requires further explanation.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I was confused because the amendment seeks to insert the word "community". The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, did not explain it when he spoke to the other amendments in the group and I wondered what was its implication. If it is simply a drafting amendment, I have no problem.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is a drafting amendment. I shall certainly undertake to look more carefully and if that is not correct I shall come back to it. I believe that these are all technical amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 189 [Mental health treatment requirement]:

Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 218CA:

    Page 111, line 1, after "periods)" insert "or under the direction of a specified person having the necessary qualifications or experience"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 218CA, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group.

The amendments were originally tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, who, because of some confusion about timing, was unable to move them at that time. I have brought them forward today with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, who is unavoidably detained by the very important work that he does at Turning Point.

The Government's intention is to widen the range of those receiving treatment as part of a community sentence. The proposed new single generic community sentence should enable people with less severe misuse and less serious patterns of offending to benefit from

5 Nov 2003 : Column 882

treatment. It will also allow courts to introduce the mental health treatment required as part of a community sentence for the first time.

Perhaps I may speak first to Amendments Nos. 218CA, 218CB and 218CD to 218CG. The new requirement will allow the court to direct an offender to undergo mental health treatment for certain periods. Treatment may be provided in an independent hospital or care home, a hospital or as a non-resident patient at a place specified in the order. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, and I, and his organisation, are concerned that treatment envisaged under the mental health requirement will be carried out only under the direction of a registered practitioner or chartered psychologist.

It is important that staff from voluntary agencies work alongside psychiatrists and psychologists. The clause does not recognise the role of the voluntary sector in delivering effective interventions, despite the fact that the sector delivers around 10 per cent of the Government's spend on mental health services. Indeed, in the health field in general, it has been acknowledged that the potential rewards of the NHS-voluntary sector partnerships are very considerable. The sector provides local, community-based, flexible and responsive services, often with strong user and carer involvement. This helps to reduce relapse, prevent crises from escalating and promote recovery.

Turning Point's experience is that staff often do not have the opportunity to contribute to a multi-disciplinary team and there is a risk that the clause will compound the problem within the criminal justice system. Indeed, staff from the voluntary sector are often better placed to see how other factors over and above a medical response may be impacting on and contributing to, or even exacerbating, a person's mental health. Lack of housing or stable relationships, unemployment or poverty are all crucial factors. These are understandably outside the remit of the psychiatrist, whose role is more clinical. Yet successful interventions will be dependent on a multi-disciplinary approach, which I know the Government are keen on.

This group of amendments would ensure that the provision for the mental requirement is put on a par with the drug rehabilitation requirement, which allows for a suitably qualified or experienced individual, such as a drug agency, to supervise the treatment.

We should not lose sight of the fact that a mental health requirement may be combined with another order, such as a drug rehab requirement or an alcohol rehab requirement. It will often need the involvement and engagement of the voluntary sector to ensure that someone's broad needs are met. That is why we have put down this group of amendments.

I will speak briefly to Amendment No. 218CC. I know that the debate on "may" and "shall" can unduly exercise the minds of noble Lords. However, the word "shall" creates a greater obligation on the court—namely, that the magistrate will not be able to impose a mental health requirement unless he or she is satisfied that the necessary arrangements are put in place. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which

5 Nov 2003 : Column 883

introduced the concept of drug testing and treatment orders, uses "shall". If the Minister is not inclined to accept this amendment, I would be grateful if she could explain the merits of "may" over "shall" in this respect and the rationale for departing from the terminology used in the 1998 Act. I beg to move.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments. I am sad that the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, is not here to add to the points which have been made by the noble Baroness in her customary very attentive and considered approach.

Amendments Nos. 218CA, 218CB, 218CD, 218CF and 218CG seek, as we understand it, to expand the definition of persons under whose treatment or direction offenders undergo mental health treatment as part of a community order or suspended sentence order. As drafted, these persons have to be registered medical practitioners or chartered psychologists. In the drug treatment provisions, treatment can be carried out by a specified person having the necessary qualifications or experience.

Drug treatment is very different from mental health treatment. While mental health treatment is essentially clinical, drug treatment may be much broader in scope. Drug treatment may, and currently does, under the drug testing and treatment order include clinical treatments such as substance substitution, but may also include interventions to address offending behaviour and to change an offender's lifestyle. It is likely to involve counselling and group work as well as the provision of education and training opportunities, all of which are designed to develop skills to reinforce and sustain rehabilitation and assist those who are going through rehabilitation programmes to work in the wider world.

There may be non-clinical elements in a mental health requirement and there is scope for voluntary sector involvement in the delivery of this, provided that it is under the direction of a registered medical practitioner or a chartered psychologist. There may also be other interventions that fall short of treatment, such as counselling or education on mental health matters. They may be delivered by the voluntary sector under other requirements of the community order.

Amendment No. 218C concerns the circumstances under which an offender can be given a mental health treatment requirement. As drafted, the court may not include such a requirement unless it is satisfied that certain conditions have been fulfilled. It must be satisfied that the offender's mental condition requires, and may be susceptible to, treatment, that suitable arrangements can be made for treatment, and that the offender has expressed his willingness to comply.

The amendment would change "may not" to "shall not", presumably in order—and the noble Baroness might help us here if we are wrong—to emphasise that the conditions must all be fulfilled before a mental health treatment can be imposed. The amendment is

5 Nov 2003 : Column 884

unnecessary, as it does not bring anything new or any further elucidation to the operation of the clause. As currently drafted, Clause 189(3) already ensures that the stated conditions are fulfilled before a court may impose a mental health treatment requirement.

In considering the clause, the noble Baroness asked particularly why "shall" had been changed to "may" from an earlier drafting. We re-enacted the clause from the 2000 police courts legislation, and did not think that we had changed any wording.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page