---

Lord Bassam of Brighton: 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.

5.15 pm

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
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column 179
 
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
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column 180
 
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.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: Before the noble Baroness responds, may I just say that I, too, had a briefing from Alcohol Concern on a good number of the issues that she has brought to our attention? She has saved me a lot of breath on those matters and I congratulate her on the way in which she has moved the amendments to many of the Government's proposals, which I welcome. This is a step in the right direction and puts a proper balance on the way in which the legislation is moving forward.

I was pleased to hear that an endeavour will be made to ensure that the contents of the courses will be as flexible as possible to fit in with the individual requirements of those who are affected by them. However, I have a concern. Some people will be able to meet the fees, but there may be people who will not be able to find the cash that will be required. I wonder whether we could have a look at that issue later, because provision is required to protect those people. Otherwise it looks as if they are going to be covered right the way through the period of the ban without any opportunity of getting the discount by undertaking treatment—and it is treatment—which is required by all, irrespective of whether they really want to get involved with it. There may be people who are debarred on the basis of the costs and we should try to find a way in which they can be covered.

I share my noble friend's view that the providers should not be limited solely to the not-for-profit agencies. Although many of those will be interested, many treatment centres in the private sector have the best interests of drug and drink abusers at heart. They will be equally well qualified—if not more so—to provide appropriate courses as some of the public services and they should not be ruled out. I hope that the noble Baroness will reflect on those points and perhaps not move her amendment on that matter.

Overall, this is a step in the right direction. I look forward to seeing the regulations and am content that there will be, I hope, a wide consultation before they are finally drawn together.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: We on these Benches also welcome this addition to the Bill, which we think gives it a great deal more balance than it had before. The provision of treatment to people who are subject to these orders cannot but be of benefit for them.
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column 181
 

I am also pleased to note that subsection (8) of Amendment No. 9 requires the court to give reasons when it does not order a course of treatment. That is a very positive way of ensuring that the court gives adequate consideration to the individual circumstances of the person before it. This reflects back on my earlier amendment to seek a report from social services or other appropriate authority into the individual who is to be made the subject of the order. We are getting away from the short, sharp shock that was to be imposed without much consideration and are taking a far better approach to the problem. I congratulate the Government on taking this step.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: 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.
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column 182
 

---