LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 28 November 2000)

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I beg to move that that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 76 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 76A to 76C in lieu thereof and Amendments Nos. 76D and 76E to the words so restored to the Bill.
1288 The amendments restore to the Bill the power for the Secretary of State to add to the list of factors that must be taken into account when imposing exclusion orders and exclusion and curfew conditions. They also increase the maximum length of exclusion order requirements to two years rather than 12 months. Other amendments are consequential on the removal from the Bill of the delegated power to alter the maximum length of an exclusion order, an exclusion or curfew condition or another community order, or a drug abstinence order. They simply ensure that the delegated powers which remain are correctly referred to in the right places—that is, the right powers are shown to be subject to negative and affirmative resolution procedures—and those powers which no longer exist are no longer referred to. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 76 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 76A to 76C in lieu thereof and Amendment Nos. 76D and 76E to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I thank the Minister for putting on the face of the Bill the two years' maximum. We fought hard in this House for that provision and so we are grateful for the concession made in another place. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to clarify what he has just said. Did he say that he was reinstating the Secretary of State's power to increase maximum sentences? My understanding was that they were to be removed and that the provision to increase the maximum sentence would be on the face of the Bill. That was the argument we put to the noble Lord for deleting the power and taking the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I said that the amendments restore to the Bill the power for the Secretary of State to add to the list of factors that must be taken into account when imposing exclusion orders and exclusion and curfew conditions. I think that the noble Baroness now follows what we are trying to achieve. It certainly reflects the understanding that we thought we had reached.
The amendments accepted in your Lordships' House earlier in the passage of the Bill were moved on the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. They deleted from the Bill the power of the Secretary of State to alter the maximum period of exclusion orders or exclusion curfew requirements of other community orders and of drug abstinence orders. However, those same amendments inadvertently deleted non-contentious powers that allowed the Secretary of State to add to the list of factors that must be taken into account when imposing exclusion orders and exclusion curfew conditions. Notice was therefore given that it would be necessary to restore these non-contentious powers.
The changes made in another place are designed to meet the wishes of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, while at the same time 1289 ensuring that the powers that ought to remain do remain. I hope that this explanation will be sufficient to satisfy the noble Baroness.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 76 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 76A to 76C in lieu thereof and Amendments Nos. 76D and 76E to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I had misheard the Minister. I am delighted with what he has just said. It represents a sizeable concession. I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.