Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32.-(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33. In moving Amendment No. 33, I speak to Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36. My noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General gave certain commitments to your Lordships on 31st March. They relate to the functions of lay staff. These amendments give effect to those commitments consistent with the recommendations of the Narey Report.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33.--Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34, 35 and 36.--(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House to agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. In the Commons my right honourable friend Mr. Kaufman asked whether or not live television links in Clause 54 also could cover Internet links. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that future technological developments of live audio and visual links, when all of us are long since passed from this mortal frame, are within the scope of the clause.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37.--(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38 and 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38 and 38.--(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 40. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 87, 171, 172, 173 and 229. Amendment No. 40 is consequential on the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 85 which sets out the calculation process for two or more sentences. Part of it relates to extended sentences and it is therefore necessary to refer to that.
Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 173 and 229 reflect the need to ensure that all offenders given extended sentences who are recalled to a prison supervision period are treated fairly and equitably.
These amendments introduce a new Section 44A in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and make necessary consequential amendments to the relevant provisions which will provide specifically for the re-release of offenders who are recalled during an extended sentence. It will ensure that all such offenders will be eligible for the same consideration for re-release on licence regardless of the length of their sentence.
Amendments Nos. 87, 171 and 172 ensure consistency by providing that those on extended sentences who are not re-released until the end of their extension period are subject to a period of supervision until the end of their sentence in the same way as any other offender released following recall. Nothing makes any fundamental change. They simply ensure that there is no inconsistency in the way that extended sentence prisoners are treated.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 40.--(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
40
Clause 56, page 43, line 6, after ("section") insert ("and section 51(2D) below").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.--(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 to 49 and 118 to 123.
On Amendment No. 43, in some cases the treatment requirement of a drug treatment and testing order may be for a period in a residential rehabilitation unit to be followed, say, by attendance at a non-residential day programme. Amendment No. 43 therefore clarifies the court's powers.
On Amendments Nos. 44 to 46, 49, and 118 to 123, as the Bill stands such an order may be made and administered only by the court which convicted the offender. There have been discussions with Association of Chief Officers of Probation (ACOP), which is a strong supporter of the order, on what will happen if an offender lives so far from the convicting court that review is unlikely to be practical. For instance, if a person in London is convicted and given an order in Leeds the treatment arrangements must be available in London but the review hearing is before Leeds. That is an absurd waste of expenditure and therefore these amendments are to correct those possible anomalies. It means that a court acting for the area in which the offender resides may be made responsible for administering the order if the court making the order thinks fit and does not itself act for that area.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 are minor pre-consolidation amendments identified in consultation with the Law Commission.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43.--(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page