Much as I would like to promise the noble Earl that I can find those figures for him within a reasonable time, I am not sure that I can. However, I will make inquiries.
Amendment No. 19 would significantly narrow who could direct this treatment by making them effectively subject to approval by the Royal College of Physicians. Amendment No. 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to maintain a central list of facilities offering this treatment to make such a list available to the courts. We do not believe that either of the amendments are appropriate, and I shall explain why.
We believe that restricting those who can direct intoxicating substance treatment only to those persons who have been approved by the Royal College of Physicians is, frankly, not practical. Such a restriction does not reflect entirely the context in which such treatment is delivered. In drafting the requirement in the Bill, we have worked closely with both the Department of Health and the National Treatment Agency. Their advice is that dependency on intoxicating substances can be resolved in a treatment intervention, as it is called, where the main worker does not have to be a medical practitioner.
Such a narrowly defined treatment provider would not allow the sort of flexibility required in the provision of this treatment. In some cases, frankly, the people providing the treatment will not have formal qualifications. For example, there may be instances where the treatment could be delivered by a person who has the necessary experience through their own previous experience of addiction. Everyone knows that those who have previous experience of wrongdoing or addiction are sometimes the very best at winning others away from addiction. For young people, such personal experience can provide—and this is my point—some of the most powerful testimony on the dangers of addiction to substances. They are not, I am afraid, liable to approval by the Royal College of Physicians.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 February 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c1028-9 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:30:10 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443305
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443305
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443305