HL Deb 18 October 2001 vol 627 cc748-9

5.50 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th July be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Drug Abstinence Order (Responsible Officer) (No. 2) Order 2001 be approved.

This is a technical adjustment to the law. The law was passed in error, using the negative resolution procedure, in May of this year, whereas this order requires the affirmative procedure. In all my years in the other place I have never come across this error, though I suspect this is not the first occasion on which it has happened. It is a minor but very important amendment to ensure that we get the affirmative procedure absolutely right.

The person responsible for the supervision of an offender subject to an order would normally be a probation officer; the more modern terminology is "responsible officer". A responsible officer can order an offender subject to an order to provide necessary samples. The new community order, which is to be piloted initially in Nottingham, Staffordshire and Hackney, is intended to apply to offenders thought to be unsuitable for other types of community order, with a view to getting them off drugs.

We know from a previous debate in July, when we passed a similar order, that there is a requirement for a trigger crime, usually connected with the acquisition of class A drugs. We need to have in place measures requiring young persons subject to orders to give samples on a regular basis to ensure that they are not taking class A drugs. It is therefore necessary under the relevant powers to define correctly the responsible officer. The prescribed responsible officers will be the officers of local probation boards, within the meaning of Section 4(4) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

I commend the order to the House.

Moved. That the draft order laid before the House on 17th July be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Roper

My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for explaining in such a frank way to the House the previous technical errors that we made. The pilot project to be facilitated by this order will be of considerable value. We are very glad that we shall now be able to do it in the proper way.

On Question, Motion agreed to.